UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Angela Eagle – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Angela Eagle – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Angela Eagle, the Labour MP for Wallasey, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2020.

    It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House. I agree with his view that we are on the cusp of a very major change in the tax base, and it is important that we debate what the nature of that change should be.

    We are living in very uncertain times. We are on our third Conservative Prime Minister in four years, and this Budget was presented by the fourth Conservative Chancellor in as many years—a Chancellor who has been in place for barely a month and who had to agree to play second fiddle to Dominic Cummings as the price of his sudden elevation.

    No Budget was delivered last year, and the Office for Budget Responsibility last published an official forecast nearly a year ago. To make up for that, we are now told to expect that 2020 will be a year of two Budgets and a spending review, so what the Chancellor announced today may be only the first in a trilogy of fiscal events this year.

    This Government of Brexit obsessives have deliberately chosen to inflict a high level of uncertainty and disruption on our future trade arrangements. There is still the prospect of an effective no-deal cliff edge at the end of 2020 should the talks with the EU go badly. The Bank of England’s own assessment points to an 8.25% hit to GDP by 2024 in the event of a sudden, unmanaged WTO outcome to the talks, yet the Chancellor barely, if at all, mentioned Brexit in his hour-long speech.

    If that were not enough, the country is now facing an immediate and massive threat caused by the rapid advance of coronavirus across the globe. In his evidence to the Treasury Committee last week, the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England said that coronavirus is likely to have a large but temporary effect on the global economy. Today, announcing an emergency interest rate cut of half a percentage point and an offer to banks of four years of cheap funding to ensure they continue to lend, the Bank of England noted a “marked deterioration” in the outcome of already weak economic growth in the coming months. With the persistence of historically low interest rates since 2008, the efficacy of monetary policy is now questionable. That makes the Chancellor’s fiscal adjustment and supply-side response in today’s Budget crucial in mitigating the coronavirus crisis.

    Clearly, fiscal policy needed to be looser, temporarily at least, to protect otherwise viable businesses from being destroyed by the short-term abnormal supply and demand shock, so I welcome the Chancellor’s fiscal stimulus package, which he costs at £30 billion. We all hope he has done enough, and we all trust that he will return with more if the situation demands.

    Jonathan Edwards

    I echo the hon. Lady’s comments. The announcements on support for small businesses are welcome, but I have been contacted by many small businesses in my constituency that are worried about extra charges due to the new Financial Conduct Authority regime for overdrafts. The Treasury needs to look at this before the regime comes into force in May.

    Ms Eagle

    I certainly hope the banks will recognise the Government’s generosity to them on lending and buffers and will pass that on to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, as well as mine.​

    Climate change and the commitment to reach net zero carbon by 2050 also pose a major challenge, and the effect of being unprepared has been tragically evident in the flooding experienced this winter. This Budget offered an opportunity to address the need to introduce transformative policies to get us on the path to net zero before it is too late, but I do not see an awful lot of detail. I welcome the increase in expenditure on flood defences, which would have been even better had it not been preceded by major cuts in expenditure on flood defences. I look forward to the Treasury’s net zero review, which needs to outline the path forward to net zero, but I am puzzled about agriculture being excluded from the announcement on red diesel. Agriculture is the major sector that uses red diesel, so that needs more detailed scrutiny.

    The UK economy remains weak in the face of these formidable challenges. The Office for National Statistics has just revealed that the UK economy did not grow at all in the last quarter of 2019, and annual growth of 1.4% last year is one of the weakest on record. The OBR’s forecast for this year was put together before the larger effects of coronavirus were taken into account. Its forecast for expenditure, excluding those effects, is an anaemic 1.1%.

    The OECD recently said it expects coronavirus to cut global growth in half. If that is true, it puts us down to about 0.6% for the year, which is one of the worst performances we could expect to see. Monday showed that, even now, the markets are pricing in a recession, so there are vulnerabilities in growth.

    There are also vulnerabilities in the UK labour market, in which 3.7 million people are in insecure jobs and have not seen real wages rise in 12 years. Inequality is rising, and one in five workers are earning less than the real living wage. Child poverty is soaring and is set to reach 5 million by 2024 due to the ongoing cuts to benefits and family support, of which there was no mention whatsoever in the entirety of the Chancellor’s speech.

    Nearly 1 million workers are on zero-hours contracts, and 2 million are not earning enough to qualify for statutory sick pay. Those in the gig economy and the self-employed are similarly vulnerable to a loss of income so, as far as they go, I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on statutory sick pay and support for those who self-isolate, but I am extremely sceptical about his announcement that those who work on zero-hours contracts will apparently be expected to apply for employment and support allowance in order to be compensated for doing the right thing. That is likely to be highly inadequate, and we need to return to that issue. I suspect the answer will be statutory sick pay for all from day one.

    The lack of rights at work is a barrier in the fight against coronavirus, and it prevents a desperately needed transformation in productivity and investment in skills. The fight against in-work poverty barely features in this Government’s thinking. Recent analysis by the Resolution Foundation has shown that the poorest fifth of the population have experienced a 7% fall in their disposable household income in the past two years, as a direct result of choices this Government have made, which were not reversed by the Chancellor. A decade of swingeing cuts has decimated public services. Public sector workers have had to do more with less, and be rewarded by ​suffering a real-terms fall in pay and conditions. The NHS has 17,000 fewer beds. There are 43,000 nursing vacancies and 10,000 doctor vacancies in the NHS that we are expecting to deal with the coronavirus crisis. There is a £6.3 billion shortfall in the resources needed for social care. We can welcome the first new investment in a decade, but we have to be clear that it barely begins to restore what has been taken away.

    We also have to remember that infrastructure spending, although welcome, does not deal with the current expenditure squeeze, which is ongoing. My local authority, Wirral Council, has £635 less per household to spend than it did in 2010. Merseyside police has seen £136 million of cuts since 2010, so the £28 million extra pledged in the spending review is welcome, but £5 million of it has to come from council tax increases and it will not restore what has been lost. We see the same in area after area: the Government trying to take credit, as though they were a new Government entirely, and distancing themselves from the Governments of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and her predecessor, who did all this cutting in the first place.

    They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Today’s overspun announcements of a £600 billion investment programme are welcomed in the self-same Tory tabloids that denounced Labour’s manifesto plans to invest £500 billion as “ruinous Marxist nonsense.” Apparently, £100 billion extra is acceptable if it is the Tories doing it. Let’s face it: we have heard it all before. Let us wait to see what they deliver before we pat them on the back. We must never forget that the Government would not have to allocate £2.5 billion to fix 50 million potholes had they not neglected our roads system with their ruinous austerity policies in the first place.

    The Conservative manifesto promised no increases to income tax, which was not mentioned today, national insurance or VAT, and the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, which he is apparently reviewing, give him only minimum headroom for any non-investment spending. His choice, therefore, is to find tax increases elsewhere or increase borrowing, which proves that the extreme cuts that have been inflicted on our society were not necessary in the first place and that the misery they have unleashed has been needlessly cruel. Starting to put right some of the damage they have done is welcome, but we will not forget the suffering and hardship they have caused, especially to the poorest in society. We will not forget the soaring levels of child poverty the Government have chosen to inflict, and the waste of potential and life opportunities that this indifference implies. We will not forget the attacks on the most vulnerable and the Government’s neglect of social care. We will continue to hold them to account for it at this and future Budgets.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2020.

    I think the most challenging speech after the Chancellor’s was the one by the Leader of the Opposition, and he discharged it well. The most challenging to listen to was the one by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the SNP, who seemed to put each page of his notes to the back of the pack and go through them twice. We were told not to interrupt him, but he interrupted himself about six times, so perhaps we could have a go instead next time. I think he was really saying that he welcomed the freeze on duty on whisky and the promotion of Scottish products overseas, and he will probably welcome the Barnett ​increase in spending available to the Scottish Government. Having said that, I would like to turn to the UK side of the Budget.

    The Government will have to recognise that our pattern and levels of taxation will change dramatically over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, with climate change and adaptation to it. If we think of the amount of money that has come from the duties on tobacco, fuel and the like, that is all going to change. We have to be prepared for a proper debate on what we are going to tax, when we are going to tax people and what we are going to spend the money on. I prefer a life cycle approach; I prefer giving people generous help when they are dependent, encouraging independence and making sure that, when people come to later stages of life, they can get proper, full help without having to ask for it.

    One initiative from the Chancellor that I particularly welcome is the extra £1 billion to help people affected by dangerous cladding on buildings. That is in addition to the £600 million announced by a previous Communities Secretary. I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, which I help to lead, and which has managed to give a voice to the voiceless. I deeply regret that the Government’s advisory service, LEASE, did not immediately tell the Government that private leaseholders in big blocks were completely exposed as the only tenants who were expected to pay for the waking watch and for the remediation of dangerous cladding.

    I pay tribute to former and present Ministers for getting a grip of this issue, and I hope they will find a way of getting together with the campaigning charity, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and with the National Leasehold Campaign. I also invite the major media to appoint housing editors and housing correspondents who can follow the details of these debates, so that they do not turn up just occasionally on Victoria Derbyshire’s programme—I pay great tribute to her and her producers, and I also pay tribute to some of the money programmes. We need to have housing experts in the media who can help to get these stories into the public domain so that the Government respond faster and more fruitfully more often.

    Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)

    I pay tribute to the Father of the House for his work. I want to raise a point that came through this week from a constituent who has been affected by the leasehold issues that the APPG has raised. In instances such as hers—she is in shared ownership—cladding is becoming an issue for those who wish to sell their homes. We need clarity about exactly who will be eligible, and any provisions need to be flexible enough to cater for all those who are affected.

    Sir Peter Bottomley

    I agree. I also think it would be a good idea in the medium term if the Government and the investment sector found ways of taking freeholds and landlordism away from some of the big, bad owners and giving them to a group of infrastructure holders who would actually treat leaseholders and shared ownership people fairly and properly.

    I want to move on to a number of other issues, because of the time limits we are left with. In 2002, the Government gave up the Crown preference whereby a ​failing business had to find how to allocate the money that could be gathered in, especially where attempts were being made to reconstruct the business to keep it going. The Government gave up their priority, but they are now bringing it back. I hope they will meet UK Finance and recovery experts to go through the issues that were debated in the Committee on the Enterprise Bill—now the Enterprise Act 2002—on 9 May 2002. I hope they will ask whether it is necessary for them to try to take a small fiscal gain for themselves at the risk of a 10 times greater impact on our economy. We know that businesses fail, and it is important that they do, but it is also important that they can be brought back to function in our economy. I hope the Government will review the question of whether Crown preference should be brought back in the way it is being.

    The Government have rightly paid attention to the pub sector, and I welcome the reliefs announced in the Budget today by the Chancellor. I would refer him to the worries of some family businesses in the brewery sector—I do not want to name any in particular. When a business has been in the same family for 200 years or more, and when the family invest five times their dividends in modernisation and pay a third of their revenue to the Government in taxation, the question of whether business relief on inheritance tax should be under threat is important. That is a separate point from the entrepreneurs’ relief the Chancellor spoke about, which could be a subject of debate now and in the future.

    Business relief for inherited family businesses is important if we want to have middle-sized companies that invest for the future year after year, and if we want to have a way for them to pass down their assets to future generations. That does matter in this country. The gap has been identified almost since the Macmillan gap 50 years ago—when I was studying economics rather badly—and it needs attention now.

    While I am talking about the pub sector, I should mention that there are many vacancies, especially in the south. The limit on people coming into this country with the £12.63 an hour rate of pay will leave a number of vacancies. I therefore hope the Government will talk to the family brewers, in particular, and work in detail through whether there can be transitional relief or arrangements that will allow our hospitality sector, employing two thirds of its people from this country, but requiring a fair number of cooks and others from overseas, to continue safely and securely.

    I talked about the life cycle approach to things. I happen to believe that the change introduced by a previous Conservative or coalition Government to make child benefit ineffective for people on £60,000 a year or more was wrong. I believe that support for children should come automatically. In a couple in which both people may be earning £60,000 a year, the taxation they pay on their £120,000 combined earnings will easily outweigh the child benefit they receive. We do not need to have people declaring or opting out of child benefit, or discovering that some change in their pay during the year has put them in a tax trap. I would restore child benefit for all children and expect that the cost of that would come out in the wash for those who are very well off.

    The leader of the SNP talked about the 1950s women and the WASPI campaign. Anyone who thinks we can rectify the whole issue of state retirement pension for ​women at 60 is wrong. That approach was put forward at the last election, and it was rejected. However, there should be some give. That might involve an actuarial calculation, which is something my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I put to a previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, although he would not let his officials do the calculations. Equally, we could have at least some give, and give the Freedom Pass to these women so that they get some recognition of the fact that they have been double-hit by the changes. That would be a welcome initiative, and one that I would put forward to the Government.

    While I am talking about pensioners, the biggest stain on this Parliament is that overseas pensioners in dominion countries and some others do not get the increases in the state pension. The law, as judged by case judges, is that while what the Government are doing may be legal, it is quite clearly wrong. The fact that we had pension agreements with Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and some of the Caribbean countries from the 1950s, when inflation was not an issue, should not leave us going on defending the indefensible. Why do half of our overseas pensioners get the increase and the other half do not? The Government really must build in getting rid of that anomaly by the end of this Parliament. It is unfair and unjustified, and it should not continue.

    If we take a long view of taxation, we can afford to pay for essential public services and the cost of borrowing for investment. I do not believe our taxation system should be unchanged forever. We may find that people are willing to pay more at certain stages of life or in certain circumstances, and less at other times.

    It is crucial that we recognise the value of health and education, and the Government have been doing that. The campaign to get fairer funding for schools has been successful, and those who tried to make school funding party political have failed, and they will fail if they try again. Let us unite on fairer funding for schools, as we have on leasehold issues, and on getting our health services to adjust the best way they can.

    As an overall judgment, no one can tell what effect this coronavirus will have on the economy as a whole, except that the economy will be challenged in some ways that can be foreseen and in some ways that cannot. I hope the Chancellor will take the opportunity in the coming nine months to keep the balance between opportunity and fairness, with consultation on major changes before they are suddenly thrown on to an unsuspecting public.

    The Government should never fear to talk about their options in the open, as they do between Government Departments. I wish the Chancellor well, I hope the Government succeed in our adjustment to being outside the European Union, and I hope our partnerships within this country, across Europe and across the world will bring the kind of prosperity that makes a difference to us.

    I have been around long enough to know that, between 1979 and 1985, Britain went from being the sick man of Europe to being one of the most prosperous and most go-ahead nations. Some of those changes were planned and some were forced on us, but the key point is that we took advantage of the opportunities, and that is what we need to do again now.

  • Ian Blackford – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Ian Blackford – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2020.

    Before I begin, I pass on my best wishes and those of my colleagues to the hon. Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—we are thinking of them and, indeed, all those who are caught up in this terrible virus.

    The scale and seriousness of the coronavirus demand a collective response. As I said last week, this virus requires all of us to demonstrate calm and practical leadership. This is the very least the public deserve from us at a time of deep and natural worry. SNP Members are committed to that approach. That example of leadership has been clearly embodied by our First Minister of Scotland, and I welcome the close co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments on this matter.

    The first priority in dealing with the crisis has to be about maintaining the health of all our people. The scale of the coronavirus has and will put added pressures on the NHS in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. I take this opportunity to thank all our NHS staff for everything they do, but most especially now, as they deal with the outbreak of this virus.

    I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has committed to providing additional funding, but I wonder whether he will take the opportunity to tell the House how much of that additional spending on the coronavirus will come to Scotland. I also urge him to go further—the SNP Scottish Government have ensured that frontline health spending in Scotland is £136 higher per person than it is in England. Social care funding is £130 per capita higher than it is in England. Matching Scottish per capita NHS spending would provide health services across the UK with the resources, equipment and staff that needed now during this crisis and in the longer term. It would also allow Holyrood to increase funding for NHS Scotland by over £4 billion by the end of this Parliament.

    Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman take an intervention?

    Ian Blackford

    I will not.

    We believe that that is the only adequate and prudent response to this unprecedented health crisis. As part of the Budget package, we also need to recognise the deep worry that people are experiencing about the impact of its consequences on their incomes, employment, rights and benefits. Just as our health response must be led by the best scientific advice, our economic response must ​be guided by the need for an appropriate fiscal stimulus that ensures that the economy is not tipped into recession. The employed and the self-employed need to be aided through the crisis. I acknowledge many of the measures taken today by the Chancellor to do just that, but more urgent and more targeted action is also required.

    In particular, urgent measures are needed to help the tourism and hospitality industry, above and beyond what has been offered today. Industry leaders are already warning of the consequences of the coronavirus, with a raft of booking cancellations and a significant drop in numbers. The SNP is advocating a package of measures, including a temporary drop in the VAT rate to 5% to help businesses to reduce their costs—[Interruption.] I can hear the Prime Minister saying, “We’ve cut interest rates,” but—[Interruption.] Business rates, rather, but the problem, Prime Minister, is that these businesses are facing a crisis not of their own making.

    Many of the businesses in my part of the world, in the highlands of Scotland, come through a fallow period over the winter. It is not just an issue of their seeing a reduction in business; in some cases, they are going to be desperately short of cash coming in through the door. Let us not forget that many of these businesses have relied on an EU workforce over the last few years. In anticipation of what is happening with the migration proposals from the Government and of the difficulty of recruiting labour, they have had to staff up. They have additional costs, but their revenues are about to fall through the floor. That is why I have written to all the major UK banks to ask them to support businesses and households through this period to make sure that working capital is extended to all businesses, and that no business—no good business in the hospitality and tourism sector—should be pushed to the wall as a consequence of what is happening.

    Chancellor, a temporary drop in VAT would allow business to weather the storm as people follow public health advice and tourist numbers drop, but let me say, on the basis of the scientific advice that we have today, that Scotland is well and truly open for business, and I encourage people to come and experience the breadth and depth of our tourism offering. VAT was reduced in Ireland and it helped to boost both employment and tourist numbers. I urge the Chancellor, in the strongest possible terms, to consider a similar policy to help our tourism and hospitality sectors to come through this crisis.

    Let me turn to the other measures in the Budget. The Chancellor has just delivered his first Budget speech—I welcome him to his position—and I give him credit for one thing: he did really well in fluently reading out Dominic Cummings’ handwriting. It is a strange irony that those who were most obsessed with taking back control from Brussels are now at the heart of the unelected, centralised elite who have grabbed control, not just in Downing Street but in the Treasury.

    Today they have produced a half-baked Budget thrown together by a bunch of Vote Leave campaigners drowning in the responsibility of government. I am talking about a group of ideologically driven campaigners—let us be charitable—so distrustful of Europe and the benefits it might have brought, economically, socially and culturally, and so caught up in their own meaningless slogans that they are blinded by the damaging reality they have caused. People are not fooled. The slogan “take back ​control” does not work when you have been in power for the last decade. We have not forgotten that the Tories have been in control and that we are all the worse for it. If the Chancellor really thinks that this Budget levels up after a decade of austerity, he must have bought himself a wonky spirit level. After delivering a decade of cruel cuts, the Tories are now offering a new decade of political and economic isolation outside the European Union.

    The Budget is a warning of what may be ahead of us and a reminder of Scotland’s need to choose a different future. It has never been more stark: Scotland’s economic interests are not served by being part of this UK union. Rather than the instability and limitations imposed by the UK, independence now offers the Scottish people the chance to build a better, more prosperous and safer future. The 2016 Brexit referendum was the moment when our political futures met a point of divergence, and we are now on the cusp of the moment of decision for Scotland’s people. The Conservatives may have delayed our democratic right, but they cannot indefinitely block the voices and votes of the Scottish people. Scotland’s future will be ours to choose, and we will very shortly make that choice. I am more confident than ever that the Scottish people will choose to be an independent, equal and European nation.

    As I have said, this is a Budget produced by a group of people who are expert in fabricating slogans but amateurs in delivering competent government. The Tories have a new slogan about levelling up funding and living standards. Let us judge them on their record. A reasonable place to start is basic income. The Office for National Statistics recently confirmed that the median income for the poorest 20% fell by 4.3% per year between 2017 and 2019. Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows that since 2010 the poorest 10% of households have lost an average of 11% of their income. That is £1,200 per year. For those with children the average loss was up to 20%, or £4,000. That is the cost of Tory Government to people in Scotland and the United Kingdom. That is the true Tory record: falling wages and growing hardship. While the gap between rich and poor grows, last month the ONS revealed that income inequality was as much as 2.4% higher on average than official figures had suggested over the decade since the financial crisis in 2008, and this Budget does not help by failing to implement policies that deal with growing inequality. The Tories still refuse to raise their pretend living wage to the real living wage and refuse to end the age discrimination that penalises our young people.

    Another reasonable place to judge their levelling up record is overall public spending. Let us not be fooled by some of the rhetoric in the statement today. Since 2010, aside from health spending, the Tories have cut per person spending on public services by a whopping 21%. This Budget comes nowhere near either closing or reversing that devastating legacy. By any standard, by any measure, by any objective acknowledgement of fact, this Tory Government have failed to level up for anyone anywhere. They cannot be allowed to hide from these facts, just as they cannot be allowed to hide from their legacy.

    Let us be clear: the poor becoming poorer was a Tory political choice. The Resolution Foundation has said that the fall in income for the poorest

    “has been driven by policy choices, with gains from higher employment more than wiped out by benefit cuts.”​

    Why did the Conservatives take these political choices? As ever, they were serving their own interests and the interests of those they serve. For them, it is a simple and cynical calculation. A Government who rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. As far as the Tories are concerned, everyone else can go whistle.

    I suppose we should not be surprised. This is a Budget advocated by a Prime Minister who once eulogised:

    “some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and…is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity.”

    Greed—a valuable spur to economic opportunity! That is the reality of the vision of the Prime Minister. That does not sound like a man determined to level up. The honeyed words and new slogans in the Budget will not change the long and bitter experience of Tory economics. People in Scotland know that they cannot believe their words, they cannot believe their promises, and they cannot believe that they will ever change—not ever.

    If this really was the great investment Budget the Chancellor heralds, he should have started by paying up the moneys the Tories have been holding back from Scotland for years. I am grateful to a Scottish Parliament Information Centre—[Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister talking about grievance. This is not about grievance; this is about the facts of what a Conservative Government have done for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre has confirmed that Scotland would be owed about £5.8 billion if the proper Barnett consequentials were applied to the DUP Brexit bung and the additional moneys since. That is the reality. That is added, of course, to the £175 million still owed to the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—money that was stolen from our vital public services. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) saying it was against all the advice. It was the vindictiveness of his Government that took these funds from the Scottish public services. That is the reality. Let us be crystal clear: the UK Government have chosen to rob Scotland’s public services of that money, and the silence from the Scottish Conservatives—their failure to stand up for our police and firemen—is audible to all.

    The Budget also turns its back on the oil and gas sector in the north-east of Scotland. These industries face months of instability and uncertainty in the aftermath of the latest collapse of an OPEC deal to stabilise prices. The oil price has plunged, yet there was not a mention of it from the Chancellor. The impact of the global oil price slump will reverberate around the world, including hitting Scotland’s vital oil and gas sector. The oil and gas sector has generated £334 billion of net tax revenues for the UK Government since 1970. Having used the sector as a cash cow, the Treasury must support it in its time of need. The UK Government must deliver crucial support for the sector as part of a just transition to net zero emissions. Scotland still bears the scars from rapid de-industrialisation under previous Conservative Governments. That must never happen again, and it must not happen to north-east Scotland.

    The failure of the Government’s investment strategy— the Chancellor admitted it today, and we see it in the productivity record—has unfortunately failed to diminish their arrogance in trying to dictate the investment needs of the devolved Administrations. We are told that the ​Treasury is considering an intra-UK connectivity study, which sounds suspiciously like another Tory power grab on the devolved Parliaments. Chancellor, how can people be expected to have faith in a Prime Minister who cannot build a bridge between London and London, and a Scottish Secretary who thinks a bridge is a euphemism for a tunnel? Having ripped up the Sewel convention, the Tories are on a mission to level down devolution. Chancellor, your Government are neither competent enough nor trusted enough to invest in infrastructure in Scotland. Go back and think again, and allow the Scottish Parliament to use extra capital resources to provide for Scotland’s infrastructure needs. We will deliver for the people of Scotland.

    The Budget fails to attempt to fix, or even to acknowledge, the underlying fundamental problem of the economy. For the past decade, the Conservatives have presided over a crisis in productivity. Only last year, about 6,000 companies revealed that uncertainty over leaving the European Union had lowered capital spending by about 11% on average. That is what is really going on in the economy. According to the Bank of England, that has cut overall UK productivity by between 2% and 5%—a reduction in productivity created by the Conservative Government in power in Westminster. The overall perception of the UK’s productivity is not helped by the Prime Minister’s productivity levels; he downs tools and hides away whenever the going gets tough.

    Static productivity is a direct consequence of choices made during the financial crisis. There was a massive quantitative easing splurge in the wake of the crash, but there has been no real return on that investment for ordinary workers. It did do one thing, though; a Bank of England analysis of the impact of quantitative easing showed that between 2006 to 2014, the 10% least wealthy households saw a marginal increase in wealth of around £3,000. The wealthiest 10% saw a £350,000 increase. In other words, printing money for the financial services industry ended up helping only those working in the financial services industry. Improved productivity, and capital investment for wider society, never got a look-in. I challenge the Chancellor: will he commit to a review of the impact of the bonus culture in financial services and its effect on general economic activity?

    As I have said, the decade of Tory austerity and the inequality it inflicted has hit the poorest hardest. The brutal cuts have targeted children and the most disadvantaged. The benefits freeze, universal credit sanctions, disability assessments, the cruel two-child limit, the rape clause—the list of failed and punishing policies goes on and on. It is a legacy the Tories should be ashamed of, and should have the basic decency to apologise for.

    If the Chancellor is serious about looking after those who have been left behind, he can begin to prove it by committing to four things. Will he increase the monthly allowance for universal credit and end the benefit cap; increase benefits above inflation and restore their value after the four-year freeze; scrap once and for all the two-child cap on tax credits and the rape clause; and follow the lead of the Scottish Government and bring in a child payment scheme similar to theirs, which has lifted 30,000 of our children out of poverty? If the Chancellor cannot commit to those four basic measures, which would reduce poverty and bring compassion into the social security system, his words and promises of levelling up will be shown to be hollow.​

    The devastating Tory legacy on social security has especially hit pensioners, who still receive the lowest state pension in the developed world, according to the OECD. They have also been denied their full rights. I am proud that the Scottish National party, with others, has stood shoulder to shoulder with 1950s-born women since the beginning of their campaign, and we stand with them still. They deserve justice, and it is disgraceful that their plight continues to be ignored in yet another Budget.

    Another Tory attack on pensioners, and another broken promise, is of course the removal of free TV licences for the over-75s. This will hit 240,000 households in Scotland and 3 million across the United Kingdom. Chancellor, this is your Government’s responsibility, not the BBC’s. It is time to pay up. Stop punishing pensioners, and keep the free TV licence for all those over 75.

    By far the biggest budgetary and economic decision that confronts these islands—[Interruption.] We are talking about some of the poorest in our society, and women who have been denied their pensions. I say to the Prime Minister that when I knocked on doors in the election campaign, I found that a great number of elderly people were alarmed by the loss of their TV licence. That is what we get from the Conservatives, but they sit laughing and scoffing. I find it remarkable. It is okay for them; the rest of the population can go hang.

    By far the biggest budgetary and economic issue that confronts these islands remains our relationship with the European Union. We hope that the negotiations on our future relationship can be successfully concluded, but all the signs from this Tory Government are that instead of co-operation and close relationships, they are heading for divergence and deregulation. The UK Government’s negotiation mandate all but confirmed that choice. The consequences for workers’ rights, environmental protection, the shape of our economy and the nature of our society will be profound, and—this will be of little interest to this Tory Government—the impact will be felt most by those who already have the least: the vulnerable and the poor. Scotland will end up paying a heavy price for a future we did not back.

    Our Government’s modelling shows that even if the UK Government secure a basic free trade agreement, Scottish GDP would be 6.1%, or £9 billion, lower by 2030 than if we had retained full EU membership. We heard from the Chancellor about the impact of a slowing global economy, and have heard about the impact that coronavirus may have on us, yet the Government are prepared to crash our economy and put Scottish workers on the dole. Not in our name! The harsh reality is that that lost GDP—let us put it in cash terms—amounts to £1,610 per person. A no-deal Brexit—heaven help us—will raise that figure to £12.7 billion, equivalent to £2,300 per person. This Tory Government will sacrifice our economic health. Why? For an ideology––the narrow ideology of the Brexit fanboys, led by Dominic Cummings, now running the Treasury. As the trade negotiations unfold in the coming months, the numbers are worth reflecting on, because it is worth reflecting on the fact that the Westminster Government are actively choosing to make Scotland’s people poorer. It is not an accident; it is by design.​

    On top of all that, the National Audit Office—[Interruption.] I find it remarkable to watch the reaction of the Prime Minister. I challenge the Prime Minister to tell me that the figures that I have just given on the impact of a free trade deal or a no-deal Brexit are wrong. The Prime Minister knows, just as I know—just as we know—that the Scottish economy is going to be harmed by what he wants to do in these trade negotiations.

    The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)

    The only threat the Scottish people face is the SNP!

    Ian Blackford

    I remind the Prime Minister that we have just had an election. He went into that election with the slogan “Say no to indyref2”; how did that work out? You lost more than half your MPs, Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. Has the House forgotten that I said that the leader of the Scottish nationalists would be heard without interruption? It seems to me, though, that most of the interruption is coming from behind him. I am protecting the right hon. Gentleman.

    Ian Blackford

    Thank you for the advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was simply responding to the chuntering by the Prime Minister.

    Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

    He interrupted.

    Ian Blackford

    Indeed, he did interrupt.

    Despite all the money that has been spent, there is still not an ounce of clarity on the UK shared prosperity fund, which was supposed to be the great sweetener offered by the Brexiteers. There was nothing in the Budget from the Chancellor on that. There was no clarity, either, for young people in respect of their opportunities to enjoy the right to travel, work and education throughout Europe as part of the Erasmus scheme. We took those rights and benefits for granted. Around 15,000 people have been involved in the programme through nearly 500 Erasmus+ projects throughout Scotland. On Monday, Universities UK estimated that leaving Erasmus+ will cost around £243 million per year. So why do it? There was no clarity, either, for the vital research and development facilities in our world-leading universities, or on their ability to access the new multibillion-pound Horizon Europe project.

    One of the biggest costs of the hard Tory Brexit will fall on rural Scotland. We know what the Government think of rural Scotland: their own adviser revealed that farming and fishing are not “critically important” to them. Farming and fishing are not critically important to the Government. In fairness, that was not really a revelation: rural Scotland has long since been wise to the Tory attitude of contempt, and more and more of our fishing communities are seeing it unfold before their eyes. With trade talks starting and the clock now ticking, we are now less than four months away from when the Tories repeat history and sell out on all their promises to Scotland’s fishing communities. The truth is that the Government will be able to secure a free trade deal with Europe only if they let EU fleets continue to access our waters on essentially the same terms as today.​

    I would like to think that Ted Heath felt some level of responsibility when he treated the Scottish fishing sector as expendable in the 1970s. It was expendable under Ted Heath in the 1970s and it is expendable under this Prime Minister in 2020. The sad truth about the Prime Minister is that he will not even bat an eyelid as he sells out on his promise to Scottish fishing communities. He simply does not care. The same is true for our farmers and crofters. In the Agriculture Bill Committee last week, SNP amendments—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister should calm down; I really worry about his blood pressure.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. Do not worry; if the Prime Minister needs to be calmed down, I will calm him down. He seems to be sitting quite calmly right now. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to his peroration.

    Ian Blackford

    I am nearly there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I care for the health of everybody, and I certainly care for the health of the Prime Minister.

    In the Agriculture Bill Committee last week, SNP amendments gave the UK Government the opportunity to ensure that food and welfare standards will not be diminished and will not be on the table in any future trade deal. It tells its own story that the Conservatives voted against all our amendments, threatening our farmers and crofters with crippling tariffs, reduced standards and costly customs bureaucracy. That has left many of them burdened with very uncertain futures. Will the Chancellor’s Government pick up the bill to compensate our farming and fishing communities if they lose revenue as a consequence of a botched Brexit?

    Let me move on to immigration. In this Budget, the Chancellor has failed to give any reassurance on one of the biggest areas of concern for Scottish businesses. From our NHS to social care, to universities, agriculture, tourism and hospitality, EU citizens play a vital part in our economy and are a core part of our communities. Unlike the Secretary of State for Scotland, we do not define these people as “cheap migrant labour”; they are our friends and our neighbours. They have come to Scotland to build a home, and under the SNP they will always be welcome. Rather than heeding concerns or engaging with tailored immigration proposals—including plans put forward by the Scottish Government for a Scottish visa system—the Tories are ploughing on regardless. It is time that this Tory Government woke up to the reality and started to listen to Scottish businesses. The Tories’ immigration plans will devastate Scotland and the United Kingdom, and the Chancellor needs to understand that a partial fig leaf to spare Scottish Tory blushes on immigration will not be enough. I urge the Chancellor, instead of blindly ploughing on, to work constructively with the devolved Administrations and our business communities on a migration system that works.

    It is genuinely concerning that this Budget falls so far short when it comes to tackling the climate emergency. It is clear that the Conservatives’ green rhetoric is merely the language of electoral convenience rather than a real priority. The Government have just sacked the president of the UN climate conference in Glasgow, and the sub-committee promised by the Prime Minister has not even met. I am glad to say that Scotland is already a world leader on tackling the climate crisis and delivering green energy. It is time for the Conservatives to get their act together.​

    The UK Government must now do their bit by ditching nuclear power and instead investing in renewables, making sure that we deliver on carbon capture and storage, and supporting the North sea sector to play its part in the transition. While they are at it, they should ditch the madness of spending £200 billion on Trident nuclear weapons that we do not need. Climate change is already threatening our world; we do not need weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde doing the same. Instead of paying lip service to climate change, the Chancellor should have set out a plan that matches Scotland’s green ambitions, matches the Government’s Paris climate agreement responsibilities, and sticks to future EU emissions standards. As Greta Thunberg has said, our house is on fire. The inaction of the Tories is the equivalent of ignoring not only the fire alarm but the flames that are swirling around our feet.

    As I move towards a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Well, I can certainly give Members some more home truths if they want them. The decisions and priorities needed to meet the challenges of the climate emergency are but one example of where Scotland has walked a very different and more progressive path than successive Westminster Governments. Last week, in the week when International Women’s Day fell, my colleague Kate Forbes, the Scottish Finance Secretary, became the first woman to present and pass a budget in our Scottish Parliament. She did that despite dealing with the unprecedented delay in today’s UK Budget and the fact that the Tories made a £13.9 billion cumulative cut to Holyrood’s budget.

    The Scottish budget was everything this UK Budget is not: ambitious, green, collaborative and compassionate, and delivering £1.8 billion of investment in low-carbon infrastructure, progressive income tax rates, free bus travel for our under-19s, record NHS spending, additional funding for Police Scotland and £800 million for 50,000 new homes. It is a budget that reflects the vision and the values of all our people. It is a budget that puts the building blocks in place for a fairer society and that makes further progress towards a new Scotland—an independent Scotland in the European Union.

  • Mel Stride – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mel Stride, the Conservative MP for Central Devon, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2020.

    There is no doubt that this Budget has been framed against one of the most challenging moments in this country’s economic history. As the Chancellor set out, many fundamentals of our economy are strong: record levels of employment; the lowest level of unemployment since 1974; low and stable inflation; and real wages that have risen over a two-year period. Nevertheless, the Chancellor was equally right to point to the huge challenges that lie ahead. He did not mention the trade deal that we are negotiating with the European Union, or—at least explicitly—the many accelerating challenges around climate change. Instead, he rightly and substantially focused on the challenge of coronavirus.

    These challenges often emerge without much warning. In 2013, the then newly appointed Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, was asked by the Treasury Committee about what he saw as the main challenges over the coming years, and he did not mention one of the three external challenges that I have just presented. These things come at us pretty fast and are sometimes very unexpected, and the Chancellor is to be congratulated on looking closely at those challenges, and coming up with robust responses.

    None the less, at the heart of this Budget hangs an important question: are the fiscal rules to which we are working robust enough, and do the spending and taxation proposals in the Budget—we will, of course, pick over them in some detail over the coming hours and days— stack up in terms of maintaining the fiscal responsibility that the markets expect of us? I think the Chancellor said that he was fundamentally sticking to the rules in the Conservative party manifesto to ensure that day-to-day spending is in balance over a three-year horizon. I think the Chancellor also suggested that, given the OBR’s forecasts, in about 2022-23 the head- room around those rules would be something in the order of £12 billion. That is all well and good—that is a reasonable level of firepower—but he also pointed out that the impact of coronavirus will not, because the cycle of the Budget forecasting by the OBR will have had a cut-off about two weeks or more ago, have been taken fully into account. I suspect that one of the key questions we will be putting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he appears before our Treasury Committee this time next week, will be to probe the figures around the headroom that is assumed in those particular numbers.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend not accept that in these very exceptional circumstances the rules have to be flexed for the temporary expenditure on the virus consequences, just as even the EU has said it to Italy, where Italy obviously has a very difficult problem?

    Mel Stride

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we flex the rules to accommodate the circumstances. My point is that when we talk about headroom within our fiscal rules, we have to make sure that the number we are focused on is as accurate as possible. Given what ​is happening with coronavirus and the fact that the OBR struck its forecasts some time ago, the current forecasts are almost certainly already out of date.

    Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)

    Once again the OBR figures show a downgrade, so do today’s Budget announcements not mask a decade of failure of economic policy by the British Government?

    Mel Stride

    Quite the reverse. I began by pointing out that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. They certainly were not strong in 2010. We inherited something of a mess from the Labour party.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the significant temptation that the Government can now borrow for 10 years at 0%?

    Mel Stride

    My right hon. Friend intervenes exactly as I am about to move on to just that point. I assume that the Chancellor is adhering to the rules set out in the manifesto. In other words, we will borrow up to 3% of GDP, subject to a cap in the event that the interest on that borrowing meets or exceeds 6% of the Government’s revenues. It seems to me, from what I have quickly scribbled on the back of a piece of paper, that the kind of figures for public sector net investment he envisages rolling out—I think he gave a figure of £110 billion by 2024-25—probably pushes us right up against that 3% level. I am looking at the Chancellor and he is kind of nodding, slightly at least, so I am assuming that that is broadly correct. The Select Committee will want to probe how sustainable that is, particularly in light of possible recasting of forecasts going forward.

    The Chancellor also raised a very interesting point about how to categorise human capital as between day-to-day spending and investment. I know he will be looking at that very closely. I can assure him that the Treasury Committee will be also be looking at that very carefully to make sure it is a rational and sensible thing to do, and not in any way shuffling the figures around to spend more and break existing arrangements. The announcements on greater spending on housing, green investment, flooding arrangements, roads, rail and the A303—thank you for what you are doing for the south-west, Chancellor—are all important, particularly given our historically low levels of productivity.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    There has been plenty of green rhetoric in the Budget for sure, but Treasury decisions continue to drive the climate emergency. There will be a freeze on fossil fuel duty, over £20 billion for new roads, compared to just £1 billion on green transport, and no commitment to removing the climate-destroying duty to maximise the economic recovery of fossil fuels. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that when it comes to showing how muddled he is on green issues, the Chancellor is absolutely getting it done?

    Mel Stride

    I am afraid I have to completely disagree. To give them credit, the Government were in the vanguard of making the commitment to net zero by 2050. Indeed, the Chancellor made a very important announcement just now about a huge investment in carbon capture and ​storage, which could be a part of further revolutionising the production of power and energy in our country, and making sure it is greener.

    Turing briefly to the remarks the Chancellor made in respect of the Green Book and how investments are analysed, it is very important that we get that right, not least in encouraging green investment. The Chancellor might want to look at the kind of discount rates we apply to green investment propositions to make sure that the Government are encouraged to invest upfront rather than further back in time. On levelling up, the Green Book needs to accommodate the fact that we need to get away from the natural returns we get in London and the south-east, and get investment out into the regions, particularly the south-west of England. [Interruption.] I see the Chancellor nodding again. That all helps to meet our net zero quest.

    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)

    I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, a fellow member and Chair of the Treasury Committee, for giving way. Does he agree that while there should be a rebalancing, it is important to recognise that inequality has to be tackled in cities like London as well as in towns and across the country? For instance, my constituency has the highest rate of child poverty in the country. We need a much more nuanced and granular response to inequality. Will he say something about the fact that the Chancellor has left out much-needed investment in local government? The investment in housing is welcome, but it needs to go a lot further to tackle the housing crisis.

    Mel Stride

    On where the investment is going, I have yet to pore over the granular detail, as the hon. Lady suggests, in the Red Book. What I do know, with regard to looking after the less advantaged and the lowest paid in our society, is that important reference was made by the Chancellor to the increase in the national living wage, worth £1,000 a year. Of course, this is a Government who increased the personal allowance, taking millions of people, particularly the lowest paid, out of tax altogether. The changes to the threshold of national insurance contributions to £9,500 will also serve that particular purpose.

    Turning to the support that the Chancellor has identified for small and medium-sized enterprises, this is absolutely vital and lies at the core of how we will cope, or otherwise, with what is to follow over the coming weeks and months. We face both a supply and demand-side effect for SMEs. The Bank of England dropped the base rate by 0.5% today, which was clearly co-ordinated with the Budget, and made changes to the counter-cyclical buffers that banks have to hold. That is all well and good and will help banks to put more money into those businesses, but the real issue will be around the fiscal measures that the Chancellor has announced, particularly relating to business rates, time-to-pay arrangements and the deferral of taxation.

    I will just say to the Chancellor that the Committee will look at three particular aspects, the first of which is how quickly help can be got out there and whether HMRC is spring-loaded to ensure that businesses are aware of what is available and how to take advantage of it as quickly as possible. I am encouraged by his comments about the helpline. Secondly, is it enough support? That needs to be monitored very carefully. Finally, there is ​the targeting aspect. Businesses in particular sectors are hurting more than others. We need to make sure that additional help is provided for them, just as we did in similar circumstances in the 2001 foot and mouth crisis, when the agricultural sector needed support. We need to recognise that there are particular types of businesses in that situation.

    I am conscious of the time that I have taken and the fact that other Members will want to come in, so I will end by touching on a specific measure that the Chancellor raised: entrepreneurs’ relief. He has taken a brave step, and the right step, in that respect. He is absolutely right that making the changes that he suggested—a reduction from £10 million to £1 million—is not about beating up on the self-employed or entrepreneurs; it is about making sure that tax reliefs are fit for purpose. The changes that he has made, including the increase in R&D tax credits, the more generous treatment in the structures and building allowance and the changes in the employment allowance, will be much more meaningful and powerful in supporting small businesses than entrepreneurs’ relief ever was.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the Chancellor is not doing enough to tackle the problem of the quality of social care, given that he barely mentioned it in the Budget statement and that 87 people a day die waiting for the care that they need?

    Mel Stride

    The Prime Minister has been consistently clear that we will engage with other parties over the issue of social care, and those discussions will occur. My plea to the House is that people do not seek to take political advantage of the situation and that they engage in a constructive manner.

    Finally, the fundamental review of business rates is most welcome. We know why business rates have generally been there—they are easy to collect and it is difficult for tax avoidance and so on to occur—but they are a huge burden on many small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country. There was no mention in the Chancellor’s remarks of the digital services tax, and I hope I can take that to mean that we are going ahead with that—he is nodding—in the matter of a short few weeks. It is right that we do that.

    Google, Facebook and Amazon—those kinds of businesses—need to pay fair taxes in our country. It is not a case of tax avoidance, but of the international tax regime being unfit for the 21st century. We have to get away from attributing tax rights simply to where the bricks and mortar, the people and the intellectual property are, and where management decisions are taken, and look more at where value is created. In the case of those businesses, a huge amount of that value is created here and we must tax it appropriately. I know the Americans will apply quite a lot of pressure and have done so already, but I urge him to stand up to that. We have engaged multilaterally with the OECD and the European Union for the preferred outcome of a multilateral approach, which will avoid double taxation problems and issues associated with going unilaterally, but we have waited too long. We must not, like other countries, step back under pressure. We must go forward with that tax as of the start of the next tax year.

    I say to the Chancellor that we in the Committee are his candid friends and we look forward to working with him. Given the kind of pressures and difficulties for our ​economy and our country at the moment, we are, right across the House, all in this together, and we look forward to him appearing before our Committee on Wednesday next week.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2020.

    The coronavirus outbreak is an emergency, so I want to make it clear that we will have to work together, all of us, to meet this head-on and to overcome it. However, we will only overcome this virus because of the dedication of our NHS staff, carers and public servants. The steps the Government have announced today to head off the economic impact of the coronavirus are obviously welcome, but I have some points I wish to raise. We have to be straight with people that it is going to be much tougher because of the last 10 years of deeply damaging and counterproductive cuts to all of our essential public services. We are going into this crisis with our public services on their knees, and as today’s figures confirm, with a fundamentally weak economy. It is now flatlining, with zero growth even before the impact of coronavirus.

    Today’s Budget was billed as a turning point, a chance to deliver in particular on the promises made to working-class communities during the general election, but it does not come close. The Government’s boast of the biggest investment since the 1950s is, frankly, a sleight of hand. In fact, it is only the biggest since they began their slash-and-burn assault on our services, economic infrastructure and living standards in 2010. Having ruthlessly forced down the living standards and life chances of millions of our people for a decade, the talk of levelling up is a cruel joke. The reality is that this Budget is an admission of failure: an admission that austerity has been a failed experiment. It did not solve our economic problems, but made them worse. It held back our own recovery, and failed even in its own terms. Today’s measures go nowhere near reversing the damage that has been done to our country.

    I am sure the whole House will wish the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) well. Many people are understandably very worried about the impact of coronavirus on their own lives. The Government need to be very clear what they are announcing, and there are still questions to be answered about the Government’s response. What coverage is there for people on zero-hours contracts or those without a contract of employment beyond the reforms to benefits? Will statutory sick pay adjustments announced today be available to all workers from day one? What support will be made available for low-paid workers who do not meet the lower earnings limit for statutory sick pay? Are there any plans to increase the level of statutory sick pay, which itself is actually scandalously low? Will people who are doing the right thing by self-isolating continue to be punished with a five-week wait for universal credit payments? The benefits system cannot be the only support for the millions of workers not entitled to statutory sick pay.

    The crisis is exposing the vulnerabilities in our economy and our public services. When 17,000 national health service beds have been cut, leaving 94% of the remaining ​beds full, and when 100,000 people were forced to wait more than four hours on trolleys in A&E departments in January, it is little wonder that people worry that the extra money for the health service is too little, too late. We have only a quarter of the intensive care beds per person that Germany has. We do not have enough ventilators to deal with a mass outbreak, or the people trained with the necessary skills to operate those ventilators. Across the national health service there are, at this moment, 100,000 staff vacancies.

    Moreover, public health budgets have been slashed by £1 billion in recent years. What an irony! Public health is based on the principle that prevention is better than cure, but this Government are providing money only after a serious outbreak is under way. We know that the people most vulnerable to coronavirus are older people, and this is when we need a strong social care system, but social care is in crisis. There is an £8 billion funding gap since 2010. Instead of the Government presenting a social care plan, which the part-time Prime Minister told us was ready long ago, they are asking the rest of us to come up with ideas. Underpaid careworkers, a quarter of them on zero-hours contracts, travel from house to house to provide care to elderly and sick people. It is a model that could scarcely be better designed to encourage the spread of a virus, so it is vital that the Government do not wait a few months, but come up now with answers to ensure that careworkers do not lose out for staying away from work if they experience the symptoms.

    The Chancellor shows not some but a lot of brass neck when he boasts that measures to deal with coronavirus are possible only because of his party’s management of the economy. Look outside: in the real world, we are still living through the slowest economic recovery in a century. Our economy is fundamentally weak. ONS figures out today show the economy is not growing: growth was 0.0% in the three months to January—0.0% in the three months to the end of January. [Laughter.] The Prime Minister might find this funny; those struggling do not.

    Future growth has been downgraded yet again from 1.4% to 1.1% this year, and that is before coronavirus is taken into account. We have stalling productivity and flatlining business investment, and wages have only just scraped past pre-crisis levels. None of this can be blamed on coronavirus, and it is not all because of Brexit either. It is because the Government have failed on the economy. That failure has left us the most regionally unequal country in Europe. Investment spending per head in London is currently more than double that in the east midlands. Now they talk about levelling up, but who pushed huge swathes of our country so low in the first place? It is Conservative Governments who have starved the country of investment over the last 10 years, resulting in a £192 billion hole in infrastructure spending.

    What has that meant for people? It has meant that bus services have been cut, there is patchy access to broadband, and homes and businesses have been ruined because of inadequate flood defences. The Chancellor expects plaudits for half-filling the investment hole his party created in the first place. Amid a blizzard of hype, he is claiming that today marks the biggest capital injection since the 1950s, but this is actually all smoke ​and mirrors. As a percentage of GDP, it only returns us to the levels we had before the Conservatives slashed investment so drastically in 2010. Given the challenge of the coronavirus crisis, we need far-reaching action to strengthen and stabilise our economy, and ensure we are in the strongest position possible to navigate the transition to new relationships with the EU and the post-Brexit economy, with the trade deals that will enable that to happen.

    If the Government truly wanted to level up after Brexit, there is one thing they should be doing above all else: a green industrial revolution. They would have a plan to kick-start new green industries and create skilled jobs all across our country. The climate emergency threatens our very existence. It demands that we mobilise our resources on a massive scale. The environmental measures announced by the Chancellor today get nowhere near that. The Government have maintained the freeze on fuel duty without lowering bus and rail fares, showing complacency about the climate emergency. Young people especially will be dismayed by the lack of urgency to reduce our emissions, which they will rightly see as the Conservatives, once again, putting the profits of big polluters and oil companies above people’s safety and wellbeing. When the Chancellor announced, with such aplomb, a huge investment in road building across the country, where was the environmental impact assessment for that policy, or for the pollution that will come from that increased use of cars and traffic across the country?

    Today’s Budget confirms that austerity has not worked, even under its own terms. We have had a decade of decline, and according to the New Economics Foundation, austerity has cost the UK economy almost £100 billion. The true cost, however, is incalculable, and I want to give the House an example to bring that home.

    Errol Graham was an amateur footballer when he was young. By his mid-50s, and suffering from mental health issues, he had become reclusive, unable to leave his flat in Nottingham, and terrified of the world outside. He could not attend his fitness-for-work assessment, and because of the Government’s harsh and very uncaring attitude, his benefits were cut off. With no income for food, he obviously began to go hungry. He wrote a desperate letter to his Department for Work and Pensions assessor:

    “Judge me fairly…It’s not nice living this way.”

    Errol weighed four and a half stone when the bailiffs found his body inside his flat. He had starved to death in this, the fifth richest country in the world. When the Chancellor talks about the “difficult decisions” that the Government took in imposing austerity, is he thinking of the decision to deprive Errol, and people like him who are going through such trauma in their lives, of their income?

    The worst thing is that austerity, and all that suffering, has been a political choice, not an economic necessity. The Conservative party continues to make the absurd claim that austerity was needed because spending on schools, hospitals and public services by Labour was somehow the cause of the worldwide financial crash in 2008. A US Senate report into the root causes of the crash singled out two investment banks for blame: Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister turfed out one Chancellor who had previously worked at Deutsche Bank, and replaced him with another one who worked at Goldman Sachs. Truly a Government of the people!​

    The Government want us to believe that austerity is over, but that is not true. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it would take at least £54 billion of current spending this year, excluding health and social care, to get us back to 2010 levels. We have heard nothing even approaching that scale from the Chancellor today, but without it, the IFS says that austerity is “baked in” to our economy. Try telling local councils, which face a further £8 billion black hole over this Parliament, that austerity is over.

    To end austerity truly and fund urgent action on the climate emergency and our public services, we need a fair taxation system, and that means making the richest pay their share. The Government’s changes to the national insurance threshold will mostly benefit higher earners, while those on lower incomes would be far better supported by boosting wages and real social security. The incomes of the poorest fifth of families have fallen by 7% in just two years. As the Resolution Foundation said,

    “this has been driven by policy choices.”

    How can it be right that 12 years after the bankers crashed the economy, the poorest 20% of the population are still being made to pay for it, while those at the top are rewarded yet again? Today we learn that the Government will not even scrap entrepreneurs’ relief—a huge subsidy that mainly benefits 5,000 people who make an average of £350,000 per year. I can assume only that those who fund the Conservative party have had a quiet word with the Chancellor, and told him to back off.

    Creating a fair taxation system also means tackling tax avoidance and evasion. How can we have confidence that this Chancellor will clamp down on tax dodgers, when previously he worked for hedge funds that used the Cayman Islands, and he had a close business associate who engaged in a multi-million pound tax avoidance scheme? How can we have confidence when the Government’s big idea is apparently free ports—tax-free zones that allow the super-rich to dodge taxes and take away workers’ protections?

    The last Chancellor resigned, saying that no self-respecting Minister could accept being controlled by advisers in No.10. The new Chancellor accepted that control, and has now presented a Budget just 27 days after taking the job. Through him, and the chuntering Prime Minister, may I pass on our congratulations to Dominic Cummings on writing a Budget so quickly?

    But what a let-down it has been. When I first responded to a Budget, austerity was very much in vogue, and our demands for investment and spending were dismissed. The terrain of public debate has shifted dramatically in just a few years, but there is a gaping chasm between the rhetoric that the Conservative party has adopted, and the reality of what it delivers. Whatever it says, the Conservative party will never stand up for working class communities, and it will always, always, put the interests of its wealthy friends first.

    The reality of today’s announcements will become clear. The hard sell and spin will fade away, and this Budget will be seen as a lost opportunity, a failure of ambition, and a bitter disappointment for all those people who have been promised so much but, from what we have heard today, will see very little.

    Several hon. Members rose—

  • Joanna Cherry – 2020 Speech on Refugees at the Turkey-Greece Border

    Below is the text of the speech made by Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West, in the House of Commons on 10 March 2020.

    I thank the Minister for his answer. Last Friday, I met my constituent Sally Wainwright to hear about her experiences as a volunteer helping refugees and migrants on the Greek islands. As tensions have risen, mobs have attacked press and aid workers, refugee facilities have been set on fire and non-governmental organisations have had to pull out.

    It is clear that the 2016 deal between the EU and Turkey is breaking down. Last week, Turkey decided to open its borders with Greece, and it even bussed migrants close to the north-western border. We have seen the troubling pictures of hundreds of refugees or migrants attempting to land small boats on the Greek islands. Tens of thousands of people have headed for the land border and become trapped between Turkey and Greece. Greece has halted all asylum claims for a month and sent riot police and border guards to turn people back, to deter them from entering the country. Aggressive measures have been employed, and we have seen migrants stripped naked and beaten before being sent back across the border. We have had reports of a refugee being shot dead by live ammunition and of a child dying at sea.

    Yesterday, as the Minister said, President Erdoğan visited Brussels for talks, and there have been reports that the EU is considering taking up to 1,500 child refugees from the Greek islands to ease the pressure on the overwhelmed camps. My constituent tells me that hundreds of those child refugees are unaccompanied. In the Prime Minister’s Greenwich speech on 3 February, he said that

    “the UK is not a European power by treaty or by law but by irrevocable facts of history and geography and language and culture and instinct and sentiment.”

    British citizens such as my constituent Sally have lived up to that sentiment and done what they can. I want to know what the UK Government are going to do on the ground to ease this humanitarian disaster.

    The Government have also spoken about protecting vulnerable children and said that that will remain a priority after Brexit, so may I ask the Minister three specific questions? First, can he tell us what the UK is going to do to ease the plight of child refugees, particularly the unaccompanied ones, on the Greek islands? Secondly, what representations have the UK Government made to Greece and Turkey to end the human rights abuses that have been reported and to ensure that Greece follows the rule of law in relation to asylum applications? Thirdly, how will the UK Government assist the British non-governmental organisations that have been forced to suspend their operations amid concerns about the safety of their staff and their volunteers?

  • Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on Refugees at the Turkey-Greece Border

    Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on Refugees at the Turkey-Greece Border

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nigel Adams, the Minister for Asia, in the House of Commons on 10 March 2020.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer the urgent question, because the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa is currently travelling back from the middle east.

    The Government are very concerned by the situation on the Greek-Turkish border, but we should not allow the crisis to detract from the reality that has created it. Continued brutal violence, particularly in Idlib, by the Syrian regime and its Russian supporters, has driven millions of refugees into Turkey and beyond.

    On 3 March, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation with their Turkish counterparts, and we have also discussed it with the Greek Foreign Minister. Dialogue is key, so we welcomed yesterday’s talks between President Erdoğan and European Council President Michel on the 2016 EU-Turkey migration deal. We will continue to support the implementation of that deal, as it is crucial to the effective management of the migratory flows and to preventing people from risking their lives by attempting to cross the Aegean. At the same time, we recognise Turkey’s generosity, and the burden of supporting millions of refugees who have fled the civil war in Syria.

    Both Greece and Turkey face additional challenges as a result of increased migrant flows, and we are providing support for their response. As well as providing humanitarian assistance in Syria, the UK is providing interpreters in the Greek island hotspots and search and rescue operations in the Aegean, and we are taking part in a range of capacity-building projects with Turkey’s Directorate General of Migration Management. We are also working across government to explore where the UK can provide further support to improve the conditions for migrants, especially the most vulnerable.

    As I have said, the principal cause of the migration situation is the reckless and brutal nature of the Syrian regime and the Russian offensive in Idlib. The Syria conflict has been one of the most destructive in recent human history, and we want the war to end as quickly as possible. We very much welcome the recent ceasefire between Turkey and Russia, but it cannot stop there. We also continue to support efforts to renew political dialogue to bring a lasting end to the Syrian conflict. We support the constitutional committee in Geneva as a first step towards obtaining the peace that the Syrian people so desperately need, and we regret that those talks have broken down. The regime and its backers must now demonstrate commitment to resolving this conflict by engaging in good faith with the constitutional committee and with the UN’s efforts. Preventing a further worsening of the humanitarian crisis is imperative, and the UK will do all we can to support those in need, while pressing for an end to the Syrian conflict that has impacted so many around the world.

  • Michael Gove – 2020 Statement on the UK’s Future Relationship with the EU

    Michael Gove – 2020 Statement on the UK’s Future Relationship with the EU

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 9 March 2020.

    Negotiators from the UK and the EU met in Brussels on 2 to 5 March 2020 for the first round of negotiations on the UK-EU future relationship.

    The negotiations were formally launched by the UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, and by the European Commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in a plenary session on 2 March.​

    The substantive discussions then took place within 11 separate negotiating groups, as agreed between the parties and as set out in the terms of reference. The session closed with a further plenary on 5 March.

    Both sides presented their positions as set out in the EU mandate and in the document “The Future Relationship with the EU—The UK’s Approach to Negotiations” (CP211). The UK’s team made clear that on 1 January 2021 the UK would regain its economic and political independence in full, and that the future relationship would need to reflect that reality.

    Discussions in some areas identified a degree of common understanding of the ground that future talks could cover. In other areas, notably fisheries, governance and dispute settlement, and the so-called “level playing field”, there were, as expected, significant differences.

    The next negotiating round will take place on 18 to 20 March in London. The UK expects to table a number of legal texts, including a draft FTA, beforehand.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 9 March 2020.

    Our thoughts are naturally with the loved ones who have sadly died of covid-19. Let me also record, again, our thanks and gratitude to our hard-working NHS and Public Health England staff.

    May I press the Secretary of State a little further? He will know that we have called repeatedly for an emergency funding package for our NHS, he will know that the NHS is short of 100,000 staff, and he will know that critical care beds were at 81% capacity during the week for which the latest figures are available. The Chancellor has said that the NHS will receive whatever it needs. Does the Secretary of State agree that in this Wednesday’s Budget we need to see significantly more resources for the NHS, not just rhetoric?

    Scaling up and freeing up capacity in the NHS is now urgent. What is being done to scale up intensive care beds in the NHS, what is being done to expand access to the oxygen and ventilation machines that will be needed, and what is the current capacity of extra corporeal membrane oxygenation beds? We welcome the distribution of personal protective equipment to NHS staff, but does the Secretary of State agree that GPs and social care staff also need access to that equipment?

    Those in receipt of social care are some of the most vulnerable, and could be affected extremely badly by this virus. Indeed, many who work in social care are low paid, and if they have to go on sick leave there are huge implications for the delivery of social care. What advice has been given to social care providers and, indeed, local authorities to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected, and what plans are in place to protect staff and increase the number in the social care sector?

    Public health directors are expected to play a leading role in local preparations. They need to make decisions about deploying staff—Public Health England, for example, has asked for staff to be seconded—yet they still do not know their public health allocations for the next financial year, which will start in three weeks’ time. We are begging the Secretary of State: please tell local directors of public health what their Budget is for this coming April.

    We are still officially in the containment stage. At some point, we presume, we will need to move into the delay stage, when we understand that social distancing measures will be necessary. Many of our constituents are now asking—and I think it would benefit the House if the Secretary of State could explain to them—why we are not yet considering more home working, whether we should be asking those over 65 to isolate themselves, whether we should be cancelling larger events, and whether those returning from northern Italy, for instance, should be quarantined. I think it would help our constituents if the Secretary of State ran through the medical advice, although I understand why he has made the decisions that he has made.

    Can the Secretary of State also confirm that once we move into the phase in which measures of this magnitude are proposed, he will come to the House, explain why that has happened, and allow Members to question him? ​He has hinted, or suggested, that we will need emergency legislation for the mitigation stage. As a responsible Opposition, we would like to sit down with him in order to understand the content of that legislation, because we want to work on a cross-party basis; but let me leave him in no doubt that we also want statutory sick pay for all from day one. Asking people to wait five weeks for universal credit is not a serious solution.

    Will the Secretary of State update the House on food supplies and the conversations that he has had with supermarkets? Can he reassure us that our constituents do not need to be panic-buying, as we saw people doing on social media in some parts of the country over the weekend? Finally, does he agree that whatever happens, we must find a way for Parliament to continue to hold Ministers to account so that we can ask questions on behalf of our constituents? However, we continue to offer to work constructively with the Government, because the public health interest and the safety of our constituents must always come first.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2020 Budget Speech

    Rishi Sunak – 2020 Budget Speech

    Below is the text of the Budget Speech made by Rishi Sunak in the House of Commons on 11 March 2020.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    I want to get straight to the issue most on everyone’s mind– coronavirus COVID19.

    I know how worried people are.

    Worried about their health, the health of their loved ones, their jobs, their income, their businesses, their financial security.

    And I know they get even more worried when they turn on their TVs and hear talk of markets collapsing and recessions coming.

    People want to know what’s happening, and what can be done to fix it.

    What everyone needs to know is that we are doing everything we can to keep this country, and our people, healthy and financially secure.

    We are clear that this is an issue above party.

    We will do right by you and your family and I know I will have the support of the whole House as I say that.

    This House has always stood ready to come together, put aside party politics, and act in the national interest.

    We have done so before and I know we will do so again.

    My RHF the PM, alongside officials and scientists, is leading the work on the public health response.

    Today, I want to set out our economic response so we bring stability and security.

    Let me say this: We will get through this – together.

    The British people may be worried, but they are not daunted.

    We will protect our country and our people.

    We will rise to this challenge.

    But let me also say:

    Yes, this virus is the key challenge facing our country today. But it is not the only challenge.

    We have just had an election where people voted for change.

    Change in our economy, change in our public services, change in the cost of living, change in our economic geography.

    This Budget delivers on that change.

    Yes, as we deal with coronavirus it is a Budget that provides security today.

    But it is also a plan for prosperity tomorrow.

    It is a Budget that delivers on our promises to the British people.

    It is a Budget of a Government that gets things done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Before I set out the details of our plan, let me first thank Members who’ve contributed to the discussions on how to respond to the coronavirus.

    Members from both sides of this House.

    Our economy is robust, our public finances are sound, our public services are well-prepared.

    My RHF the Health Secretary is working around the clock to protect the public’s health.

    And I will do whatever it takes to support the economy.

    First, let me explain the nature of the economic challenge and my overall strategy.

    The challenge is this:

    There is likely to be a temporary disruption to our economy.

    On the supply side, up to a fifth of the working age population could need to be off work at any one time.

    And business supply chains are being disrupted around the globe.

    This combination of people being unable to work…

    …and businesses being unable to access goods…

    …will mean that for a period our productive capacity will shrink.

    There will also be an impact on the demand side of the economy, through a reduction in consumer spending.

    The combination of those effects will have a significant impact on the UK economy.

    But it will be temporary.

    People will return to work.

    Supply chains will return to normal.

    Life will return to normal.

    For a period, it’s going to be tough.

    But I’m confident that our economic performance will recover.

    So given this analysis of the situation, let me set out our strategy to deal with it.

    We can’t avoid a fall in demand, because the primary driver of that reduction in consumption…

    …the primary reason people are not spending as normal…

    …is because they’re following Doctors’ orders to stay at home.

    So, the right immediate policy response is to provide security and support for those who get sick or can’t work through funding our public services, and a strengthened safety net.

    And on the supply side, the right response is to provide a bridge for businesses, to ensure that what is a temporary impact on our productive capacity does not become permanent.

    In other words, our response will be temporary, timely and targeted.

    This is the right response – and at the right time.

    That response is clearly and closely coordinated with the Bank of England.

    The Governor and I have been in constant communication about the evolving situation…

    …and our responses have been carefully designed to be complementary and to have maximum impact, consistent with our independent responsibilities.

    The Governor set out this morning the actions that the Bank will take to help UK businesses and households bridge across the likely economic disruption:

    A 50 basis point reduction to interest rates, to support business and consumer confidence;

    The introduction of an SME Term Funding Scheme, to help reinforce the transmission of the reduction in Bank Rate to the real economy;

    And they have released the counter-cyclical buffer, to further support the ability of banks to supply credit.

    The Government’s response will use fiscal action to support: public services, households and business.

    Together, we are taking action that is coordinated, coherent and comprehensive.

    Let me now set out our three-point plan.

    First, whatever extra resources our NHS needs to cope with coronavirus – it will get.

    So, whether its research for a vaccine, recruiting thousands of returning staff, or supporting our brilliant Doctors and Nurses…

    …whether its millions of pounds or billions of pounds…

    …whatever it needs, whatever it costs, we stand behind our NHS.

    Second, during this immediate crisis, if people fall ill or can’t work, we’ll support their finances.

    We’ll make sure that our safety net remains strong enough to fall back on.

    My RHF the Prime Minister has already announced that Statutory Sick Pay will be paid from day one, rather than day four.

    Today, with the assistance of My RHF, the Work and Pensions Secretary, I can go further.

    Statutory sick pay will also be available for all those who are advised to self-isolate – even if they haven’t yet presented with symptoms.

    And rather than having to go to the Doctors you will soon be able to obtain a sick note by contacting 111.

    But of course, not everyone is eligible for Statutory Sick Pay.

    There are millions of people working hard, who are self-employed or in the gig economy.

    They will need our help too.

    So to support them, during this period, we’ll make it quicker and easier to access benefits:

    Those on Contributory Employment and Support Allowance will be able to claim from day 1 instead of day 8;

    To make sure that time spent off work due to sickness is reflected in your benefits, I’m also temporarily removing the minimum income floor in Universal Credit;

    And I’m relaxing the requirement for anyone to physically attend a jobcentre; everything can be done by phone or online.

    Taken together, these measures on ESA and Universal Credit, provide a boost of almost £0.5bn to our welfare system.

    To further support our people, I am also creating a £500m Hardship Fund, distributed to Local Authorities…

    …who will be able to use that fund to directly support vulnerable people in their local area.

    So, in total, that’s a £1bn commitment to support the financial security of our people.

    But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best way to support people is to protect their jobs.

    And we do that by supporting our businesses – the third part of our plan.

    The measures I’ve announced today on Statutory Sick Pay are crucial to support those who need to take time off work – but that cost would be borne by business.

    And if we expect 20% of the workforce to be unable to work at any one time, the cumulative cost would hit our small and medium sized businesses hard.

    So, in recognition of these exceptional circumstances, today I am taking a significant step.

    For businesses with fewer than 250 employees…

    …I have decided that the cost of providing Statutory Sick Pay to any employee off work due to coronavirus…

    …will, for up to 14 days, be refunded by the Government in full.

    That could provide over £2bn for up to 2 million businesses.

    This will significantly ease the burden on businesses, but we can do more.

    I have asked HMRC to scale up the Time To Pay service, allowing businesses and the self-employed to defer tax payments over an agreed period of time.

    Starting today, there will be a dedicated helpline with 2,000 staff standing ready to help.

    Although Time to Pay is important, it will still be the case that some good, well-run businesses will face problems with their cash flow.

    They may struggle to pay people’s salaries, pay their bills, or buy new stock.

    They will need loans to get through this period.

    So, today, I am announcing a new, temporary Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme.

    Banks will offer loans of up to £1.2m to support small and medium sized businesses.

    The government will offer a generous guarantee on those loans, covering up to 80% of losses, with no fees, so that banks can lend with confidence.

    This will unlock up to £1bn of attractive working capital loans to support small businesses, with more as needed.

    Taken together, I expect the combination of these measures to protect the vast majority of businesses through the worst of the crisis.

    But I have two other measures that will use the tax system to support businesses through this.

    Our manifesto promised that for shops, cinemas, restaurants, and music venues…

    …with a rateable value of less than £51,000…

    …we would increase their business rates Retail Discount to 50%.

    Today I can go further, and take the exceptional step, for this coming year, of abolishing their business rates altogether.

    But there are tens of thousands of other businesses in the leisure and hospitality sectors, currently not covered by this policy.

    Museums, art galleries, and theatres;

    Caravan parks and gyms;

    Small hotels and B&Bs; sports clubs, night clubs; club houses, guest houses.

    They would not benefit from today’s measure – but they could be some of the hardest-hit.

    So for this year I have decided to extend the 100% retail discount to them as well.

    That means any eligible retail, leisure or hospitality business with a rateable value below £51,000 will, over the next financial year, pay no business rates whatsoever.

    That is a tax cut worth over £1bn, saving each business up to £25,000.

    And it means, over the next twelve months, nearly half of all business properties in England will not pay a penny of business rates.

    I’m also launching today a fundamental review, to be concluded at the Autumn Budget, into the long-term future of business rates.

    But even with the temporary extension of the retail discount to the leisure and hospitality sectors…

    …many of our smallest businesses already pay no business rates, so would not benefit from this policy.

    So to support them to manage their fixed costs, I am going to go a step further.

    I am providing, to any business currently eligible for the small business rates relief, a £3,000 cash grant per business.

    This is a £2bn cash injection direct to 700,000 of our smallest businesses.

    Let me summarise for the House the fiscal impact of our immediate response to coronavirus.

    Taken together, the extraordinary measures I have set out today represent £7bn to support the self-employed, businesses and vulnerable people.

    To support the NHS and other public services, I am also setting aside a £5bn emergency response fund – and will go further if necessary.

    Those measures are on top of plans that I will set out later in this Budget, which provide an additional fiscal loosening of £18bn to support the economy this year.

    That means I am announcing today, in total, a £30bn fiscal stimulus to support British people, British jobs and British businesses through this moment.

    And, of course, if further action is needed as the situation evolves – I hope the whole House knows, I will not hesitate to act.

    I believe this represents one of the most comprehensive economic responses of any government anywhere in the world, to date.

    The Governor of the Bank of England and I are in close contact with our counterparts, around the world, in the G7 and the G20.

    And to support the global response, I’m also making new funding of £150m available for the IMF’s relief efforts.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Coronavirus will have a significant impact on our economy – but it will be temporary.

    I will do whatever it takes to get our nation through it. I’m acting today with a multi-billion-pound commitment:

    More money for our NHS.

    More generous Sick Pay.

    Faster access to benefits if you’re self-employed.

    Extra local support for the most vulnerable.

    Tax cuts, loans and grants for businesses to protect people’s jobs.

    Comprehensive action, and if more action is needed, I will take it. And I know all Members of the House will want to give this plan their full support.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Before I turn to the economic forecasts, I hope the House will join me in thanking the Office for Budget Responsibility – and Robert Chote, in particular.

    After ten years, this is his last Budget in charge.

    He’s led the OBR with dedication and integrity – and established that institution as one that is respected around the world.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Let me now turn to the growth forecasts.

    Since the OBR closed their forecast, it has become clear that the spread of coronavirus will have a significant impact on our economy in the coming quarters.

    But given the nature of the shock is temporary, I still want to set out for the House the OBR’s judgement on the economy over the medium term.

    Even before coronavirus hit, we were facing a slowing world economy.

    There has been, across developed economies, including here in the UK a decade-long slowdown in productivity.

    This, combined with the political uncertainty over the last three years…

    …which affected business investment in particular…

    …has led the OBR to downgrade our productivity over the forecast period…

    …and to slightly reduce GDP growth, compared to the March 2019 forecast.

    But while the world may slowdown, we will act here with a response that is brave and bold, taking decisions now for our future prosperity.

    We are investing in world class infrastructure, and to lead the world in the industries and technologies of the future.

    The central judgement I’m making today is to fund an additional £175bn over the next five years for our future prosperity.

    The OBR have said that, as a direct result of the plans I’m announcing, growth over the next two years will be 0.5 percentage points higher than it otherwise would have been.

    For the benefit of the House, the GDP forecast without fully accounting for the impact of coronavirus would have led to growth of 1.1% in 2020 and 1.8% in 2021, then 1.5%, 1.3%, and 1.4% in the following years.

    And today the OBR have made an estimate they’ve never made before.

    They have said, in their words, that today’s “large planned increase in public investment should boost potential output too”.

    If future Governments have the same determination to continue our approach, the UK’s long-term productivity will increase by 2.5%.

    The OBR have confidence in the long-term future of our economy – and so do I.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    More investment and higher growth mean more jobs and higher wages.

    We already have more people working in our economy than ever before.

    Women’s employment is at a record high.

    And since 2010, full time weekly wages have grown faster in every region and nation of the UK than they have in London.

    The OBR expect half a million more people will be in work by 2025.

    Wages are expected to grow in real terms in every year of the forecast period.

    The story of this government has been the story of a national jobs miracle.

    And, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the last few weeks I’ve had, I’m all in favour of jobs miracles.

    On inflation, the OBR forecast 1.4% this year, increasing to 1.8% next year and then, for the rest of the forecast period, remaining on or around target.

    And I’m sure the whole House will join me in taking this opportunity to thank Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England for his 7 years of dedicated public service.

    We congratulate him on his new role as Finance Adviser for COP26.

    And welcome his successor Andrew Bailey, who takes up his post on Monday.

    [FISCAL STRATEGY]

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Let me turn now to the fiscal forecasts.

    The economic impacts of coronavirus remind us of the importance of fiscal responsibility.

    Our public finances are strong, with the deficit down from 10% in 2010 to less than 2% last year.

    Our economy is well-prepared for the future and it is well-prepared because of 10 years of Conservative-led Governments and Conservative Chancellors.

    But it’s important that we update our fiscal framework to remain at the leading edge of international best practice.

    Our economic security depends on maintaining the following principles:

    Low and stable inflation delivering price stability;

    Fiscal sustainability;

    And independent, effective institutions – like the Bank of England and the OBR.

    These features of our framework will always be protected.

    But there is a live global debate about what our low interest rate environment means for fiscal strategy…

    …about the case for fiscal policy to play a more active role in stabilising the economy …

    …and about the best ways to measure productivity-enhancing investment in the economy, such as human capital, or measuring value on the public balance sheet.

    So I want to take time to consider these questions over the coming months…

    …so that our fiscal framework allows us to make the right long-term decisions for our economic security and prosperity.

    I will review the fiscal framework, consulting widely with a range of experts.

    And will report back in the autumn, if I conclude that any changes are necessary,.

    But at the same time, credibility comes as much from what we do as what we say.

    We were elected on a manifesto that promised to meet a specific set of fiscal rules.

    Today’s Budget is about delivering our promises.

    That’s why, despite the speculation, today’s Budget…

    …is delivered not just within the fiscal rules in our manifesto, but with room to spare.

    And I’m setting the amount that government will spend for the rest of this Parliament within those rules as well.

    Today the OBR report a current budget surplus in every one of the next five years.

    And in the target year of 2022-23, we have fiscal space of nearly £12bn.

    The OBR forecast that borrowing will increase slightly from 2.1% of GDP in 2019-20 to 2.4% in 2020-21 and 2.8% in 2021-22.

    It falls to 2.5%, 2.4% and 2.2% in the following years.

    And the OBR forecast that headline debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament than it is today, falling from 79.5% this year to 75.2% in 2024-25.

    I’m sure the House will understand that given how urgently we’ve developed our economic response to the coronavirus…

    …that package of measures have not yet been captured in the fiscal forecasts, and nor have the fiscal impacts of the Bank’s actions.

    But the House will also note that the target year for our current budget fiscal rule is not until 2022-23.

    So even within our current framework, I have the flexibility to act as required over the next two years.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    As we enter a period of challenge, we start from a position of strength.

    The economy growing.

    More jobs.

    Higher wages.

    Stable inflation.

    Sound public finances.

    We promised to manage our economy responsibly – we’re getting it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    This Budget responds, at scale, to the immediate threat of Coronavirus.

    And it reports on an economy whose foundations are strong.

    It is a Budget that provides for security today.

    But let me now outline our Plan for Prosperity tomorrow.

    This is the first Budget of a new decade.

    The first in almost fifty years outside the European Union.

    And the first of this new government.

    At the election, we said we needed to be one nation.

    While talent is evenly spread, opportunity is not – we need to fix that.

    This is a Budget that will deliver on our promises to the British people.

    And it is the Budget of a Government that gets things done.

    We promised to get Brexit done, and we got it done.

    We promised to let hard working families keep more of what they earn.

    This Budget gets it done.

    We promised to back our businesses to innovate, invest and trade.

    This Budget gets it done.

    We promised to invest in science and research.

    This Budget gets it done.

    We promised to deliver green growth and protect our environment.

    This Budget gets it done.

    We promised to level up, with new roads, railways, broadband and homes.

    This Budget gets it done.

    And, yes, we promised record funding for our NHS and public services.

    This Budget gets it done.

    This Government delivers on its promises and gets things done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Our plan for prosperity starts immediately by putting more money in people’s pockets.

    It was a Conservative Government that in 2016 introduced the National Living Wage, giving Britain’s lowest paid workers the biggest pay rise in 20 years.

    And in just three weeks’ time, around 2 million workers will see their wage rise again by 6.2% – for a full-time worker, that’s a pay rise of almost £1,000.

    That is the biggest cash increase ever.

    But we’ve promised to go further.

    Today we’re publishing a new Remit for the independent Low Pay Commission.

    They now have a formal target that, as long as economic conditions allow, by 2024 the National Living Wage will reach two-thirds of median earnings.

    On current forecasts, that means a living wage of over £10.50 an hour.

    We promised to end low pay – we’re getting it done.

    And as people earn more – we’ll also cut taxes on their wages.

    I am increasing, in just four weeks’ time, the National Insurance threshold from £8,632 to £9,500.

    That’s a tax cut for 31 million people, saving a typical employee over £100.

    And taken together, our changes to the National Living Wage, income tax, and now National Insurance…

    …mean that someone working full time on the minimum wage will be more than £5,200 better off than in 2010.

    The Conservatives are the real workers’ party.

    I can also confirm, now we’ve left the EU, that I will abolish the tampon tax.

    From January next year, there will be no VAT whatsoever on women’s sanitary products.

    And I congratulate all the Members and RH Members who campaigned for this, including the former Member for Dewsbury, who led the charge.

    Let me turn now to duties.

    Scotch whisky is a crucial industry – and our largest food and drink export.

    My Scottish Conservative colleagues, including My HF the Member for Moray, have highlighted to me the impact that the recent US tariffs are having.

    We will continue to lobby the US government to remove this harmful tariff.

    In the meantime, I’m announcing today £1m of support for promoting Scottish food and drink overseas and £10m of new R&D funding to help distilleries go green.

    And to further support the industry I can also announce that this year the planned increase in spirits duty will be cancelled.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Pubs are at the centre of community life.

    But too many have closed over the last decade.

    We’re already promised to introduce a business rates ‘pub discount’, of £1,000, for small pubs.

    But I’ve heard calls from many Honourable and Right Honourable Members, including My HF the Member for Dudley South, that we need to do more…

    …especially given the possible impact of coronavirus on pubs.

    So today I can announce that, exceptionally, for this year, the business rates discount for pubs will not be £1,000 – it will be £5,000.

    And I’m also pleased to announce that the planned rise in beer duty will also be cancelled.

    And because of decisions I’ve taken elsewhere in the Budget, I am also freezing duties for cider and wine drinkers as well.

    For only the second time in almost twenty years, that’s every single one of our alcohol duties frozen.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    I have heard representations that after nine years of being frozen, at a cost of £110bn to the taxpayer, we can no longer afford to freeze fuel duty.

    I’m certainly mindful of the fiscal cost and the environmental impacts.

    But I’m taking considerable steps in this Budget to incentivise cleaner forms of transport.

    And many people still rely on their cars.

    So I’m pleased to announce today that for another year fuel duty will remain frozen.

    Compared to pre-2010 plans, that’s a saving of £1,200.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Wages – up.

    National insurance – cut.

    The tampon tax – abolished.

    Spirits duty – frozen.

    Beer duty – frozen.

    Wine and cider duty – frozen.

    Fuel duty – frozen.

    We promised to cut taxes and the cost of living – and we got it done.

    [BUSINESS]

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    As Conservatives, we know that to put more money in people’s pockets, we need a thriving private sector.

    That is what drives growth, that is what creates jobs, that is what lifts living standards.

    So the second part of our plan for prosperity is to unleash the power of business.

    Businesses need support to start up, grow and export.

    So today, I provide:

    £130m of new funding to extend Start-up Loans;

    £200m for the British Business Bank to invest in scale-ups;

    Another £200m for life sciences;

    More money for Growth Hubs;

    21 cities with British Library business support;

    £5bn of new export loans for businesses;

    And dedicated trade envoys representing the North, the Midlands, Wales and the West of England in embassies around the world.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, businesses also need a fair tax system.

    We were elected on a manifesto that promised to review and reform Entrepreneurs’ Relief.

    I’ve now completed that review – and here’s what we’re going to do.

    Entrepreneurs’ relief is:

    Expensive – at a cost of over £2bn a year.

    Ineffective – with less than 1 in 10 claimants saying the relief has been an incentive to set up a business.

    And unfair – with nearly three quarters of the cost going to just 5,000 individuals.

    Just because it is called Entrepreneurs’ Relief doesn’t mean that it’s entrepreneurs who mainly benefit.

    For all these reasons, I have heard representations that I should completely abolish it.

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies have criticised it.

    The Resolution Foundation called it “the UK’s worst tax break”.

    I’m sympathetic to that argument.

    But at the same time, we shouldn’t discourage those genuine entrepreneurs who do rely on the relief.

    We need more risk-taking and creativity in this country, not less.

    So I have decided not to fully abolish Entrepreneurs’ Relief today.

    Instead, I will do what the Federation of Small Businesses called “a sensible reform” and reduce the lifetime limit from £10m to £1m.

    80% of small business owners are unaffected by today’s changes.

    Those reforms save £6bn over the next five years – and I’m giving most of that money straight back to business through three additional measures.

    The Research and Development Expenditure credit will be increased from 12 to 13% – a tax cut worth £2,400 on a typical R&D claim.

    The Structures and Buildings Allowance will be increased from 2 to 3%, giving an extra £100,000 of relief if you’re investing in a building worth £10m.

    And, to cut taxes on employment, I will deliver our promise to increase the Employment Allowance by a third to £4,000.

    That’s a tax cut this April for nearly half a million small businesses.

    Another step towards the dynamic, low tax economy we want to see.

    Madam Deputy Speaker – we promised to cut taxes on business – we’re getting it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, to help our businesses lead the next generation of high productivity industries…

    …we also need to invest now in the technologies of the future.

    We are the country of Newton, Hodgkin and Turing – ours is a history filled with ideas, invention and discovery.

    And it is truly a national history.

    The first steam railway ran between Stockton and Darlington.

    The first television was invented by a Scot.

    A Welshman invented the first hydrogen fuel cell.

    And Jocelyn Bell Burnell, born in Northern Ireland, discovered the first radio pulsars.

    To compete and succeed over the next decade and beyond, we need to recapture that spirit.

    So, the third part of our Plan for Prosperity is to invest in ideas.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, in our manifesto we made a promise to double investment in research and development to £18bn.

    I will not be doing this today.

    Instead, I will increase investment in R&D to £22bn a year.

    That is the fastest and the largest increase in R&D spend ever.

    As a percentage of GDP, it will be the highest in nearly forty years – higher than the US, China, France and Japan.

    And a major step towards our target of increasing public and private investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP.

    We won’t wait to get started – next year, funding will grow by 15%, the fastest year-on-year growth on record.

    Detailed allocations of our new investment in ideas will be set out at the Spending Review.

    But I can make some announcements today.

    I’m investing £1.4bn in our world-leading science institute at Weybridge, where, as we speak, they’re working to analyse samples of Coronavirus.

    To secure our leadership in the technologies of the future, I’m investing over £900m in nuclear fusion, space and electric vehicles.

    And as we invest in ideas, we’re also changing the way we fund science in this country.

    I can confirm that we will invest at least £800m in a new blues-skies funding agency here in the UK…

    …modelled on the extraordinary ‘ARPA’ in the US.

    And as we invest in ideas, we’re also changing where we fund science in this country.

    Today, 50% of R&D funding goes to London, the East and the South East of England.

    We’re investing £400m incremental funding into high quality research, with much of that funding going to brilliant universities around the country.

    We promised to make this country one of the scientific and research centres of the world – we’re getting it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    There can be no lasting prosperity for our people, if we do not protect our planet.

    So the fourth part of our Plan for Prosperity, is:

    To create the high skill, high wage, low carbon jobs of the future.

    To level up, with completely new industries in our regions and nations.

    To raise our productivity and lift our quality of life even as we cut our emissions.

    The Treasury’s Net Zero Review will set out the Government’s strategic choices ahead of COP26 later this year.

    Today’s Budget takes the first steps.

    First, we will increase taxes on pollution.

    Electricity is now a cleaner energy form than gas – but our Climate Change Levy, paid by companies, taxes electricity at a higher rate.

    So as another step towards equalising the rates and encouraging energy efficiency, from April 2022 I’m freezing the levy on electricity and raising it on gas.

    I will support the most energy-intensive industries to transition to Net Zero, by extending the Climate Change Agreements scheme for a further two years.

    To tackle the scourge of plastic waste, we will deliver our manifesto promise to introduce a new Plastics Packaging Tax.

    From April 2022, we will charge manufacturers and importers £200 / tonne on packaging made of less than 30% recycled plastic.

    That will increase the use of recycled plastic in packaging by 40% – equal to carbon savings of nearly 200,000 tonnes.

    Let me now turn to Red Diesel.

    The Red Diesel scheme allows selected users to pay duty of just over 11p per litre for diesel, compared to almost 58p per litre for everyone else.

    But the sectors using red diesel are some of the biggest contributors to our air quality problem – emitting nearly 10% of the most noxious gases polluting the air of cities like London.

    This is a tax relief on nearly 14 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide every year…

    …the same as the entire population of London and Greater Manchester taking a return flight to New York.

    It’s been a £2.4bn tax break for pollution that’s also hindered the development of cleaner alternatives.

    So I will abolish the tax relief for most sectors.

    That’s the right thing to do – but I recognise it will be a big change for some industries.

    So firstly, this change will not take effect for two years – giving businesses time to prepare.

    Secondly, I have heard the concerns about agriculture, particularly from the NFU, and [rural colleagues] including My RHF the Member for Sherwood…

    …so I have decided that agriculture will retain the relief.

    I’ll also keep the relief for rail, for domestic heating, and there will be no impact on fishing.

    We’ll consult over the summer with other sectors.

    And thirdly, to help develop cleaner alternatives to red diesel and other fossil fuels, we will more than double R&D investment in the energy innovation programme to £1bn.

    As well as taxing pollution – we will invest and cut taxes on clean transport.

    We’re introducing a comprehensive package of tax and spend reforms to make it cheaper to buy zero or low emissions cars, vans, motorbikes and taxis;

    We’re investing £300m in tackling nitrogen dioxide emissions in towns and cities across England;

    And we’re investing £500m to support the rollout of new rapid charging hubs, so that drivers are never more than 30 miles away from being able to charge up their car.

    Taken together, this Budget invests £1bn in green transport solutions.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Many Members around this House will have seen the devastating impact of the recent floods on homes and businesses in their own constituencies…

    …and particularly the HM for Barnsley East, my HFs the Members for Calder Valley, and Telford, and My RHF the Member for Ludlow.

    I can announce today that I’m making £120m available immediately to repair defences damaged in the winter floods.

    To support those areas that have been repeatedly flooded, I’m providing £200m of funding directly to local communities to build flood resilience.

    And to protect people and over 300,000 properties, I’m doubling our investment in flood defences over the next six years to £5.2bn.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    We’re also supporting natural habitats like woodlands and peat bogs.

    I can confirm today that to protect, restore and expand these wonderful habitats – and capture carbon – we will provide £640m for a new Nature for Climate Fund.

    Over the next five years, we will plant around 30,000 hectares of trees – that’s a forest larger than Birmingham – and restore 35,000 hectares of peatland.

    This Government intends to be the first in history to leave our natural environment in a better state than we found it.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    I can make one further announcement on green growth.

    Carbon Capture and Storage is precisely the kind of exciting technology where Britain can lead the world over the next decade.

    I can announce today that we will invest at least £800m to establish two or more new Carbon Capture and Storage clusters by 2030.

    Once up and running, these clusters will store millions of tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

    The new clusters will create up to 6,000 high skill, high wage, low carbon jobs in areas like Teesside, Humberside, Merseyside or St Fergus in Scotland.

    It’s levelling up in action.

    Madam Deputy Speaker – green jobs; better flood defences; cheaper electric vehicles; innovative new technologies.

    We promised to protect our environment – we’re getting it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    We as a party know that talent is evenly spread in this country, but opportunity is not. We have to put that right.
    We need to build the infrastructure that will lay the foundations for a new century of prosperity. We need to grab the opportunity to upgrade, to improve, to enhance, to level up.

    That starts today with the next part of our plan – as we get Britain building.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Over the next five years, we will invest more than £600bn pounds in our future prosperity.

    Public net investment will, in real terms, be the highest it has been since 1955.

    Take the average amount we’ve invested over the last forty years in real terms – we’re tripling it.

    Capital budgets in 2024-25 alone will reach over £110bn.

    I will set out the detailed capital allocations at the Spending Review – but I’m taking three major steps today.

    First, we’re going to change the whole mindset of Government.

    To make sure economic decision-making reflects the economic geography of the country…

    …we’re reviewing the Treasury’s Green Book…

    …we’ll have Treasury offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…

    …and I can announce today that we’re also opening a new economic campus in the North…

    …with over 750 staff from the Treasury, and the departments for business, local government and trade.

    And we won’t stop there – our ultimate ambition is to move 22,000 civil servants outside central London.

    Second, because of this changed mindset, we’ll invest more in our nations, cities and towns.

    Today’s Budget provides an extra £640m for the Scottish Government, £360m for the Welsh Government, and £210m for the Northern Ireland Executive.

    I’m announcing £242m of funding for new City and Growth Deals, taking our investment in these deals to more than £2.7bn.

    We’ve agreed today a new devolution deal in West Yorkshire, with a directly-elected Mayor for the region.

    And to make sure that it isn’t just Londoners who benefit from the kind of long-term transport deal that helped TfL…

    …I’m announcing today that the new West Yorkshire Mayor will, along with seven other Metro Mayors…

    …get new, London-style funding settlements, worth £4.2bn.

    These settlements are in addition to the Transforming Cities Fund, which will invest over a billion pounds in local transport in 12 further cities, including Stoke, Preston, Derby and Nottingham, and Southampton.

    Third, we’re going to build broadband, railway, roads – if the country needs it, we will build it.

    Today’s Budget provides £5bn to get gigabit-capable broadband into the hardest to reach places.

    And £510m of new investment into the shared rural mobile phone network…

    …which means that in the next five years 4G coverage will reach 95% of the country.

    And let me thank My RHF the Culture Secretary, who will get this done.

    We’re also going to build better railways:

    With spades going in the ground on HS2…

    …our commitment to fund the Manchester-Leeds leg of the Northern Powerhouse Rail…

    … funding today for a new station at Cambridge South and the Midlands Rail Hub…

    …Darlington station moving to the next stage of development and approval…

    …and funding to make a dozen train stations more accessible.

    And there’s more money for our roads too.

    Today, I’m announcing the biggest ever investment in strategic roads and motorway – over £27bn of tarmac.

    That will pay for work on over 20 connections to ports and airports, over 100 junctions, 4,000 miles of road.

    I’m announcing new investment in local roads, alongside a new £2.5bn pothole fund – that’s £500m every single year; enough to fill, by the end of the Parliament, 50 million potholes.

    The details of all the road schemes I’m funding will be published later today – and I thank my RHF the Transport Secretary for his efforts.

    Our ambition is truly national.

    The A417 in the South West.

    The A428 in the East.

    The A46 in the Midlands.

    Unclogging Manchester’s arteries.

    Freeing the traffic north of Newcastle.

    And, something my North and Mid Wales colleagues will be particularly pleased to hear…

    …we’re protecting beautiful villages in the Welsh Borders, as we finally build the Pant-Llanymynech bypass.

    We promised to get Britain moving – and we’re getting it done.

    And there’s one more road I want to mention.

    It’s one of our most important regional arteries.

    It is one of those totemic projects symbolising delay and obstruction.

    Governments have been trying to fix it since the 1980s.

    Every year, millions of cars crawl along it in traffic.

    Ruining the backdrop to one of our most important historic landmarks.

    To the many H & RHMs who have campaigned for this moment – I say this:

    The A303 – this government’s going to get it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Today we’ve announced the biggest programme of public investment ever.

    £27bn for strategic roads this Parliament.

    Funding to fill 50m potholes.

    New railways and stations.

    £5bn for broadband.

    A new Mayor for West Yorkshire.

    Investment in every region and nation of the United Kingdom.

    We promised to get Britain building – this Budget is getting it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Only by having a plan for prosperity will we grow the economy.

    Only by having a growing economy can we invest in our public services.

    And only by investing in our public services, the people’s priority, can we send a clear message to those who rely on them:

    You are our priority.

    Our public services are the one of the most important tools by which we, the government, can level up and spread opportunity…

    …so that no matter who you are or where you were born, you’ll have every chance to succeed in our modern dynamic economy.

    That starts with education.

    We’ve already provided schools with a three-year settlement worth over £7 billion by 2022.

    My RHF the Education Secretary is taking forward our plans to increase per pupil funding next year by an average of over 4%.

    Today, I’m providing every region in the country with funding for specialist 16-19 maths schools…

    …£25,000 per year, on average, for each secondary school to invest in arts activities…

    …and £30m a year to improve PE teaching…

    …along with £8m for the Football Foundation’s scheme to build new pitches for around 300,000 people to play on.

    And to support families, I’m providing £2.5m to fund research into how best to integrate family services, including family hubs, championed by My HF the Member for Congleton.

    Next, I’d like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor and friend, the RH Member for Bromsgrove.

    One of the issues he is most passionate about is levelling up further education.

    At the Spending Round, he increased funding for 16-19 education by £400m.

    Today I can secure his legacy, with £1.5bn of new capital over five years to dramatically improve the condition of the FE college estate.

    My predecessor wanted to level up FE – Saj, we’re getting it done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I have one final education announcement.

    I’ve talked today about Britain being the country of scientists, inventors and engineers.

    But we’re also the country of Shakespeare, Austen and Dahl.

    Our greatest export to the world is our language.

    Our greatest asset is the free exchange of ideas and debate.

    And our greatest responsibility is the education of our people.

    A world-class education will help the next generation to thrive.

    Nothing could be more fundamental to that than reading.

    And yet digital publications are subject to VAT.

    That can’t be right.

    So today I am abolishing the reading tax.

    From 1st Dec, just in time for Christmas, books, newspapers, magazines or academic journals, however they are read, will have no VAT charge whatsoever.

    There will be no VAT on historical fiction by Hilary Mantel, manuals and textbooks like “Gray’s Anatomy”, or, indeed, works of fantasy like John McDonnell’s “Economics for the Many”. The irony is, it sold so few, it is literally his own little-read book.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    Our second priority is to make sure people have affordable and safe housing.

    Today I can make good our promise to extend the Affordable Homes Programme with a new, multi-year settlement of £12 billion.

    This will be the largest cash investment in affordable housing in a decade.

    To support Local Authorities to invest in their communities, I’m cutting interest rates on lending for social housing by 1 percentage point…

    …making available more than £1bn of discounted loans for local infrastructure…

    …and consulting on the future of the Public Works Loan Board.

    I’m confirming nearly £1.1bn of allocations from the Housing Infrastructure Fund…

    …to build nearly 70,000 new homes in high demand areas across the country…

    …a new £400m Fund for ambitious Mayors like Andy Street in the West Midlands, to build on Brownfield sites…

    …and tomorrow, my RHF the Housing Secretary will set out for the House comprehensive reforms to bring the planning system into the 21st century.

    But the housing challenge is most acutely felt by those with no home at all.

    So today I’m confirming nearly £650m of funding to help rough sleepers into permanent accommodation.

    That will buy up to 6,000 new places for people to live…

    …enable a step change in support services…

    …and help us meet our promise to end rough sleeping in this Parliament.

    And to fund those rough sleeping measures…

    …I’m confirming today that our manifesto promise to introduce a new stamp duty surcharge for non-UK residents…

    …will be introduced at a rate of 2% from April 2021.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    I have one further measure to announce on housing.

    Two and a half years on, we’re still grappling with the tragic legacy of Grenfell.

    Last year, we allocated £600m to remove unsafe Aluminium Composite Material (or ACM) from high rise residential buildings.

    Today I go further.

    Expert advice is clear that new public funding must concentrate on removing unsafe materials from high rise residential buildings.

    So, today, I am creating a new Building Safety Fund worth £1 billion.

    That is what the independent experts have called for.

    That is what the Select Committee has called for.

    That is even what the Opposition have called for.

    That new fund will go beyond dealing with Aluminium Composite Material to make sure that all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed…

    …from every private and social residential building above 18 metres high.

    And My RHF the Housing Secretary will spearhead our efforts to make sure developers and building owners do their fair share as well.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    There is no more cherished public service than our NHS.

    Whatever resources the NHS needs to deal with coronavirus – it will get.

    We all benefit from a thriving health service – so it is right that we ask everyone to contribute.

    Business benefits from our NHS.

    So, as promised in our manifesto, the Corporation Tax rate will not be cut this year, but will remain at 19% – still the lowest rate in the G20.

    Migrants benefit from our NHS.

    And we all want them to do so – but it’s right that what people get out, they also put in.

    There is a surcharge already, but it doesn’t properly reflect the benefits people receive.

    So, as we promised in our manifesto, we are increasing the Immigration Health Surcharge to £624, with a discounted rate for children.

    To raise further funds for the NHS, I’m announcing a package of measures today to clamp down on aggressive tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance…

    …including extra funding for HMRC to secure £4.4bn of additional revenue.

    And those extra contributions allow me to take three further steps to support our health services.

    First, mental health support can be critical for many people – and particularly for our veterans.

    Thanks to the campaigning from My HF the Member for Wolverhampton South West, and My RHF the Member for Harwich and North Essex…

    …I will be supporting veterans’ with mental health needs with a £10m donation to the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust…

    …and I’m also confirming today that, to encourage employers to offer veterans work, we’ll introduce a new National Insurance relief.

    Second, I’ve listened to concerns, from all sides of this House, that the pensions tax system is preventing Doctors from taking on more hours.

    To significantly reduce the number of people that the tapered annual allowance affects…

    …I’m increasing both taper thresholds by £90,000, removing anyone with income below £200,000.

    Based on their vital work for the NHS, that will take around 98% of consultants and 96% of GPs out of the taper altogether.

    At the same time, I’m reducing the minimum annual allowance to £4,000 – which will only impact those with incomes above £300,000.

    This is a £2bn commitment that supports our hardworking Doctors.

    Let me turn now to the overall funding settlement for the NHS.

    We’ve already provided the NHS with a record funding increase.

    £34bn over five years – the biggest cash increase in public services since the Second World War.

    Today I can go further.

    I can announce over £6bn of new funding in this Parliament to support the NHS.

    That new money will deliver:

    50,000 more nurses.

    50 million more GP surgery appointments.

    And work starting on 40 new hospitals.

    And you heard that right, 40 new hospitals.

    We promised to back our NHS – this Budget gets it done.

    I have one last point to make about public services.

    We have now left the EU.

    We promised to get Brexit done, and we got it done.

    We promised to regain control of the money we send to Brussels.

    And for the first time ever, today’s OBR forecast shows that the billions of pounds we would have sent to the EU, we can now spend on our priorities.

    Today, I’m launching the next Spending Review, to conclude in July, setting out detailed spending plans for the Parliament.

    Let me set out for the House our new totals for spending on public services.

    The OBR have said that today’s Budget will be the largest sustained fiscal boost for thirty years.

    Next year, day-to-day departmental spending will grow at the fastest rate in fifteen years.

    Over the spending review period, its set to grow at the fastest rate since 2004.

    An average growth rate in real terms of 2.8% – twice as fast as the economy.

    That means that by the end of the Parliament, day-to-day spending on public services will be £100 billion higher in cash terms than it is today.

    More police – safer streets.

    More nurses – better healthcare.

    More teachers – better education.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, the House now knows what the electorate already knows:

    The Conservatives are the party of public services.

    Madam Deputy Speaker,

    We’re at the beginning of a new era in this country.

    We have the freedom and the resources to decide our own future.

    A future where we unleash the energy, inventiveness and creativity of all the British people.

    And a future where we look outwards and are confident on the world stage.

    That starts right now with our world-leading response to the coronavirus.

    This is a Budget delivered in challenging times.

    We will rise to this moment.

    We will get through this together.

    This Budget delivers security today.

    But it also lays the foundations for prosperity tomorrow.

    This is just the start.

    Over the next few months we’ll tackle the big issues head on.

    From our National Infrastructure Strategy…

    …to social care…

    …and further devolution.

    This is the Budget of a Government that gets things done:

    Creating jobs.

    Cutting taxes.

    Keeping the cost of living low.

    Investing in our NHS.

    Investing in our public services.

    Investing in ideas.

    Backing business.

    Protecting our environment.

    Building roads.

    Building railways.

    Building colleges.

    Building houses.

    Building our Union.

    A Budget that delivers on our promises.

    A People’s Budget from a People’s Government.

    And I commend it to the House.